title: Case C-125/00: Action brought on 31 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
10.6.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/17
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       in Case C-105/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
                                                                      on 18 December 1998.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex        (1) OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1.
                                                                      (2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That period expired on 23 September 1998
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue          Action brought on 31 March 2000 by the Commission
into national law.                                                    of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
(1) OJ L 277, 10.10.1997, p. 24.
                                                                                (Case C-126/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/31)
                                                                      An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                      2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as
Action brought on 31 March 2000 by the Commission                     Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                    of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                             Republic                                 Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-125/00)
                                                                      — Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                         (2000/C 163/30)                                   laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                                                                           to comply with Commission Directive 98/77/EC (1) of
                                                                           2 October 1998 adapting to technical progress Council
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before               Directive 70/220/EEC (2) on the approximation of the laws
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March               of the Member States relating to measures to be taken
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles,
represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as           within the period prescribed by Article 4(1) thereof, the
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office             Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the fourth
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                         paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as
                                                                           Article 4(1) of Directive 98/77/EC;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           — Declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the
                                                                           Commission immediately of such measures, the Portuguese
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the same
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                 provisions;
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    tive 97/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the           — Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
    Council of 17 June 1997 on certain component and
    characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the
    Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          Pleas in law and main arguments
    under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
    paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty as well as Article      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    8(10) of Directive 97/24/EC; and                                  in Case C-105/00 (3) the time-limit for transposition expired
                                                                      on 31 December 1998.
— Declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform the
    Commission immediately of such measures, the Portuguese           (1) OJ 1998 L 286, p. 34.
    Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the same          (2) OJ 1970 L 76, p. 1.
    provisions;                                                       (3) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-495/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Productos Asfálticos (Proas) v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/48

         Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Productos Asfálticos (Proas) v Commission
   (Case T-495/07)
   (2008/C 64/79)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Productos Asfálticos (Proas), SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C Fernandez Vicién, P Carmona Botana and A. Pereda Miquel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision [C(2007) 4441],or alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Productos Asfálticos SA, and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is directed against Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007in the Case COMP/38710 — Bitumen Spain. In the contested decision, the Commission declared that the applicant, together with other companies, had infringed Article 81 EC by having taken part, over a certain period, in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the market for penetration bitumen, namely agreements for sharing the market and coordinating prices. In respect of those infringements the Commission imposed a fine for which the applicant and another company are jointly and severally liable.
   In support of its claims, the applicant first alleges that the Commission erred in the assessment of the facts. In that context, the applicant considers that the Commission incorrectly assessed the seriousness of the infringement and the position of the applicant in the cartel, with particular reference to its specific weight in the market and the assessment that it was co-leader of the cartel.
   Secondly, the applicant complains that the Commission infringed the applicable law. The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment by incorrectly applying the Notice on cooperation of 2002 (1), infringes the principle of sound administration by not having completed the procedure within a reasonable time and sets a fine which is above the lawful limit established in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2), thereby infringing the principle of proportionality.
   In addition, the applicant considers that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons.

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

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 1999 in Case C-55/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): Skatteministeriet v Bent Vestergaard (Freedom to provide services — Income tax — Taxable income — Deduction of expenses for professional training courses — Distinction according to the location of the courses)

text:
5.2.2000                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 34/5
Stuttgart (Higher Regional Court, Stuttgart), Germany, for a                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten
(ARD) and PRO Sieben Media AG, supported by SAT 1                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
Satellitenfernsehen GmbH, Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH —
on the interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Directive
89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain                                          of 28 October 1999
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by
Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the                     in Case C-55/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60) — the Court                     the Højesteret): Skatteministeriet v Bent Vestergaard (1)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                        (Freedom to provide services — Income tax — Taxable
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-                income — Deduction of expenses for professional training
trar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October                  courses — Distinction according to the location of the
1999, in which it has ruled:                                                                                courses)
1. Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October                                           (2000/C 34/09)
     1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
     law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
     concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as
     amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament                                    (Language of the case: Danish)
     and of the Council of 30 June 1997, is to be construed as
     prescribing the gross principle, so that, in order to calculate the
     45-minute period for the purpose of determining the number of
     advertising interruptions allowed in the broadcasting of audiovis-
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     ual works such as feature films and films made for television, the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     duration of the advertisements must be included in that period.
2. Article 11(3), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of Directive             In Case C-55/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     89/552, as amended, authorises Member States to prescribe, for          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Højesteret
     television broadcasters under their jurisdiction, the net principle     (Supreme Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the
     for advertisements which may be inserted during programmes,             proceedings pending before that court between Skatteministe-
     and thus to provide that, in order to calculate that period, the        riet and Bent Vestergaard — on the interpretation of Articles 6
     duration of the advertisements must be excluded, on condition,          and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
     however, that those rules are compatible with other relevant            EC and 49 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
     provisions of Community law.                                            R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
                                                                             acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn
                                                                             and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
     Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Articles 6 and          Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
     30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and           judgment on 28 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
     28 EC), Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and
     the general principle of equal treatment do not apply to national
     rules which prescribe the application of the net principle for          Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
     television broadcasters under their jurisdiction.                       precludes a Member State from having rules which, for the purposes
                                                                             of determining taxable income, presume that professional training
                                                                             courses held in ordinary tourist resorts located in other Member States
     Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49           involve such a significant tourism element that the costs of taking
     EC) does not preclude a Member State from prescribing, under            part in those courses cannot be treated as deductible operating costs,
     Article 3(1) of Directive 89/552, the application of the net            while such a presumption does not exist in the case of professional
     principle.                                                              training courses held in ordinary tourist resorts located within the
                                                                             territory of that Member State.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.


title: Case C-594/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2012 — Kärntner Landesregierung and Others

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2012 — Kärntner Landesregierung and Others
   (Case C-594/12)
   2013/C 79/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verfassungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kärntner Landesregierung, Michael Seitlinger, Christof Tschohl, Andreas Krisch, Albert Steinhauser, Jana Herwig, Sigrid Maurer, Erich Schweighofer, Hannes Tretter, Scheucher Rechtsanwalt GmbH, Maria Wittmann-Tiwald, Philipp Schmuck, Stefan Prochaska

      Other party to the proceedings: The Federal Government

      Questions referred

   1.   Concerning the validity of acts of institutions of the European Union:

   Are Articles 3 to 9 of Directive 2006/24/EC (1) compatible with Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
   2.   Concerning the interpretation of the Treaties:

               2.1.

               In the light of the explanations relating to Article 8 of the Charter, which, according to Article 52(7) of the Charter, were drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of the Charter and to which due regard must be given by the Verfassungsgerichtshof, must Directive 95/46/EC (2) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (3) be taken into account, for the purposes of assessing the permissibility of interference, as being of equal standing to the conditions under Article 8(2) and Article 52(1) of the Charter?

               2.2.

               What is the relationship between ‘Union law’, as referred to in the final sentence of Article 52(3) of the Charter, and the directives in the field of the law on data protection?

               2.3.

               In view of the fact that Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 contain conditions and restrictions with a view to safeguarding the fundamental right to data protection under the Charter, must amendments resulting from subsequent secondary law be taken into account for the purpose of interpreting Article 8 of the Charter?

               2.4.

               Having regard to Article 52(4) of the Charter, does it follow from the principle of the preservation of higher levels of protection in Article 53 of the Charter that the limits applicable under the Charter in relation to permissible restrictions must be more narrowly circumscribed by secondary law?

               2.5.

               Having regard to Article 52(3) of the Charter, the fifth paragraph in the preamble thereto and the explanations in relation to Article 7 of the Charter, according to which the rights guaranteed in that article correspond to those guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, can assistance be derived from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights for the purpose of interpreting Article 8 of the Charter such as to influence the interpretation of that latter article?

      (1)  Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

      (2)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 23 May 1996 in the case of Daniel Zanone v. Council of Europe and the French Republic (Case C-9/96 P)

text:
No C 210/4            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 7 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                       ( Third Chamber )                             pending before that court between Office National de
                                                                     l'Emploi and Calogero Spataro — on the interpretation of
                        of 13 June 1996                              Article 69 ( 4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of
in Case C-144/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made           14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
by the Tribunal de Police,«'Toulouse ): Criminal proceedings         to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                against Jean-Louis Maurin ( 1 )                      members of their families moving within the Community, as
(Request for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of the            amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC )
principles concerning observance ofthe rights ofthe defence          No 2001 /83 ( OJ No L 230, 1983 , p . 6 ) — the Court ( Third
and of the adversarial nature of proceedings — National              Chamber ), composed of: J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
legislation and the prevention offraud — Foodstuffs — No             President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C.
                            jurisdiction)                            Gulmann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D.
                                                                     Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the
                          ( 96/C 210/06 )                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 June 1996 the operative
                                                                     part of which is as follows :
               (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Article 69 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
         published in the European Court Reports)                    14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
                                                                     to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
In Case C-144/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177          members of their families moving within the Community, as
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Police ( Local Crime             amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
Court), Toulouse ( France ), for a preliminary ruling in the         No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , applies not to an unemployed
criminal proceedings before that court against Jean-Louis            person's acquisition of entitlement to benefits, but to his
Maurin — on the interpretation of the principles concerning          requalification for benefits, when he returns to Belgium
observance of the rights of the defence and of the adversarial       after the three-month period prescribed by Article 69 (1 ) (c)
nature of proceedings — the Court ( Third Chamber ),                 has expired. Article 69 (4) does not permit entitlement to
composed of: J. -P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,            benefits to be denied to unemployed persons who, on the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C. Gul                 date of their application for benefits, fulfil the conditions
mann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; D.                   imposed by Belgian law for acquisition of such
Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the                  entitlement.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 1996 , the
operative part of which is as follows :                              (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
The Court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether
procedural rules applicable to offences under national
legislation which falls outside the scope of Community law
may be in breach of the principles concerning observance of
the rights of the defence and of the adversarial nature of
proceedings.                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                                           of 23 May 1996
                                                                     in the case of Daniel Zanone v. Council of Europe and the
                                                                                French Republic
                                                                                Case C-9/96 P )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            ( 96/C 210/08 )
                       ( Third Chamber )
                        of 13 June 1996                              On 15 January 1996 an appeal was lodged before the Court
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities against the order of
in Case C-170/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
the Belgian Cour de Cassation ): Office National de l'Emploi         16 November 1995 dismissing, on the ground of manifest
                   v. Calogero Spataro (')                           lack of jurisdiction, the action brought by Daniel Zanone ,
(Social security — Unemployment benefit — Article 69 (4)             represented by Véronique Ducros de Lafarge de Romefort,
             of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)                         of the Paris Bar, 17 rue des archives, Paris, against the
                          ( 96/C 210/07 )                            Council of Europe and the French Republic, the proceedings
                                                                     not having been served on the defendants .
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 23 May 1996 the Court of Justice ( First
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Chamber ) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to
         published in the European Court Reports)                    bear his own costs .
In Case C-170/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Cour de Cassation ( Court


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 1999 in Case C-185/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 92/101/EEC)

text:
C 204/16                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          17.7.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
                             of 19 May 1999
                                                                                of 20 May 1999
in Case C-225/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)                            in Case C-185/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom
to provide services — Public procurement procedures —                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
  Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors)                                    transpose Directive 92/101/EEC)
                            (1999/C 204/30)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/31)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-225/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v French Republic (Agents: Kareen
Rispal-Bellanger and Philippe Lalliot) — application for a                  In Case C-185/98: Commission of the European Communities
declaration that, by not adopting all the measures necessary to             (Agent: Maria Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: Aikaterini
comply with Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February                      Samoni-Rantou and Nana Dafniou) — application for a
1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative                  declaration that, by failing to adopt and, in the alternative, by
provisions relating to the application of Community rules on                failing to communicate to the Commission, within the period
the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,              prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L                 necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/101/EEC of
76, p. 14), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        23 November 1992 amending Directive 77/91/EEC on the
under Articles 1(2), 2(1)(c) and 2(5) of that Directive, and                formation of public limited liability companies and the main-
under Chapters 2 and 4 thereof — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                 tenance and alteration of their capital (OJ 1992 L 347 p. 64),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the                  the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Chamber, G. Hirsch and G.F. Mancini, Judges; A. La Pergola,                 the EC Treaty and that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,             composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the
has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, in which it:                           Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                            on 20 May 1999, in which it:
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all
    the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of Chapters
    2 and 4 of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992              1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed,
    coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    relating to the application of Community rules on the procure-               comply with Council Directive 92/101/EEC of 23 November
    ment procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,                  1992 amending Directive 77/91/EEC on the formation of
    transport and telecommunications sectors, the French Republic                public limited-liability companies and the maintenance and
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) thereof;            alteration of their capital, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. Rejects the remainder of the application;
                                                                            2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
3. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.


title: Case T-272/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/13
      tions in Article 2 of the Commission's Decision COMP/              Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing in Brussels, represented by
      M.2903 have been met;                                              Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 May
The applicant is a German undertaking which is active, in                      2003 rejecting the applicant's request that the employ-
particular, in the area of telematic services for commercial                   ment contract be renewed;
vehicles. It is challenging the Commission's decision of
30 April 2003, by which the Commission found the acquisi-
tion of joint control over the newly formed joint venture, Toll
Collect GmbH, by DaimlerChrysler AG, Deutsche Telekom AG                 —     in the alternative, annul the reference to the Rule against
and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes SA                     Overlapping contained in administrative notice of
(Cofiroute) compatible with the common market and with the                     14 November 1996 entitled New Policy under Article 2
EEA Agreement.                                                                 (a) of the CEOS;
The applicant submits that the Commission approved the
notified concentration following, above all, its acceptance of           —     in the alternative, order the defendant to make good the
the commitments proposed by DaimlerChrysler Services AG                        damage suffered as a result of the unjustified refusal to
and Deutsche Telekom AG and that in doing so it wrongly                        extend the applicant's contract of employment amount-
assessed the effects of the concentration on the market for                    ing, subject to all necessary reservations, to
telematic services even in the light of the commitments.                       EUR 101 328,60, together with default interest;
Furthermore, the Commission wrongly accepted that the com-
mitments were adequate to solve and wholly eliminate the
competition problem.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant also submits that the Commission's definition of
the relevant geographic market was wrong and that its defini-            Pleas in law and main arguments
tion of the relevant product market was incomplete.
                                                                         The applicant worked for the Commission as a national expert
Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its          on secondment from 1 December 1997 to 30 November
rights of defence so far as the proposed commitments are                 2000. She was then engaged as a member of the temporary
concerned.                                                               staff from 1 December 2000 to 15 February 2001. Since
                                                                         16 February 2001 she has been covered by a 3-year contract
                                                                         which may be extended by a further year. That contract expires
                                                                         on 30 November 2003 and the applicant requested that it be
                                                                         extended by a year.
                                                                         The applicant states that the request was rejected by the
Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores                         Commission on the basis of the consistent practice of taking
Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European                       account of the length of service as national expert on second-
                          Communities                                    ment when applying the anti-overlap rule. According to that
                                                                         rule, non-official staff at the Commission must not serve for a
                        (Case T-272/03)                                  total in excess of 6 years.
                        (2003/C 251/26)
                                                                         In support of her application, the applicant alleges, first, infrin-
                                                                         gement of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of
                   (Language of the case: French)                        the European Communities, in particular Article 8 thereof,
                                                                         infringement of other staff rules of the institutions and error
                                                                         of law. According to the applicant, the Commission was not
An action against the Commission of the European                         entitled to take into account the period during which she had
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               worked as a national expert on secondment when calculating
of the European Communities on 4 August 2003 by María                    her total time at the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/14              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
The applicant further alleges: breach of the duty to give                contested Decision. The opening of the procedure was not
reasons for decisions, the duty to have regard for the welfare           properly based on public health considerations. Furthermore,
of officials and of the principle of sound administration;               the referral and the opening of the procedure covered the
manifest error of assessment; breach of the principle of                 entire content of the SPC. This goes beyond the permissible
legitimate expectations; and, finally, misuse of powers.                 scope of an Article 30 referral, and such a procedure does not
                                                                         allow for the adoption of a harmonised SPC. Moreover, the
                                                                         opening of the procedure lacked proper reasoning.
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicants submit that the harmonisation of
                                                                         the SPCs in the contested Decision was illegal, since the
                                                                         Commission did not have the power to adopt the Decision.
                                                                         In the alternative, the applicants argue that even if the
Action brought on 1 August 2003 by Merck Sharp &                         Commission could, in principle, have harmonised the SPCs
Dohme Limited and 8 others against the Commission of                     for RENITEC, the Commission has failed to identify any public
                 the European Communities                                health reasons justifying the harmonisation of the SPCs.
                        (Case T-273/03)
                        (2003/C 251/27)                                  The applicants finally claim that the contested Decision is
                                                                         illegal because binding time-limits of the Directive were not
                  (Language of the case: English)                        observed and because the Commission and the Committee for
                                                                         Proprietary Medicinal Products failed to provide sufficient rea-
                                                                         soning.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 1 August 2003 by Merck
Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, (United Kingdom),                      (1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Haalem, (Netherlands),                             Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products
Laboratoires Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret, Paris, (France),                   for human use (OJ L 311 of 28.11.2001, p. 67).
MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Haar, (Germany), Merck Sharp
& Dohme (Italia) SpA., Rome, (Italy), Merck Sharp & Dohme,
LDA, Paço de Arcos, (Portugal), Merck Sharp & Dohme de
Espana S.A., Madrid, (Spain), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ges.m.b.
H., Vienna, (Austria), and VIANEX S.A., Nea Erythrea, (Greece),
represented by Mr G. Berrisch and Mr P. Bogaert, lawyers.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Verlag GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
—     annul the contested Decision;                                                                (Case T-275/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 251/28)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
The applicants are Marketing Authorization Holders of the
medicinal product RENITEC and associated trade names.
RENITEC contains the active ingredient ‘enalapril’ and is used           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
in treatment of hypertension and heart failure.                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicants challenge the Commission Decision C(2003)                 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, Munich
1752 of 21 May 2003 concerning the placing on the market                 (Germany), represented by U. Gürtler, lawyer. ECI Telecom
of medicinal products for human use containing the substance             Ltd., Petach Tikva (Israel) was also a party to the proceedings
‘enalapril’ by which the Commission harmonised the Summary               before the Board of Appeal.
of Product Characteristics (‘SPC’) for RENITEC and associated
trade names. The contested Decision was adopted as a result of
a referral procedure under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC            The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Parliament and the Council (1).
                                                                         —     annul Decision No 2055/2001 of the Opposition
The applicants argue that the initiation of the Article 30                     Division of the defendant of 27 August 2001 in opposi-
procedure was illegal and that that entails the illegality of the              tion proceedings B 288680;


title: Case T-84/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena et Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/53

      Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena et Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)
      (Case T-84/16)
      (2016/C 211/67)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy), Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘widiba’ — Application for registration No 12 192 415

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases R 113/2015-2 and R 174/2015-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

            In the event of dismissal of conclusion 1) above,

                  —

                  annul the contested decision at issue as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 415 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 415 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

            In any case,

                  —

                  annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 15 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures

            In any case,

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

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


title: Case T-46/13: Action brought on 28 January 2013 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/24

         Action brought on 28 January 2013 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA)
   (Case T-46/13)
   2013/C 86/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sabores de Navarra, AIE (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and O. González Fernández, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frutas Solano, SA (Calahorra, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 November 2012 in Cases R 2542/2011-2 and R 2550/2011-2;

               —

               consequently, apply the decision of 11 October 2011 adopted by the Cancellation Division of OHIM in annulment proceedings No 4633 C; that decision declared invalid in part Community Trade Mark No 5042346 ‘KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA’ (word mark) in respect of Class 29 for ‘Preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; all originating in Navarra’ and in respect of Class 30 for ‘Pastry and confectionery, honey, treacle; sauces (condiments); spices’;

               —

               uphold the applicant’s submissions requiring the relevant Cancellation Division of OHIM to declare invalid once again the goods set out in the previous point;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs associated with the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 33 — Registered Community Trade Mark No 5 042 346

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Frutas Solano, SA

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Figurative mark with the word element ‘Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 33, 39 and 42

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal brought by Frutas Solano, SA upheld in part and partial annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division, dismissal of the applicant’s action

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of that regulation;

               —

               Breach of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-30/06: Action brought on  13 March 2006  — Hanot v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/50

         Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Hanot v Commission
   (Case F-30/06)
   (2006/C 131/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Cécile Hanot (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Articles 5(2) and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations are unlawful;

               —

               Annul the decision appointing the applicant as an Assistant, in that it sets her classification at grade B*3, step 5, pursuant to Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision to remove all the points which form the applicant's ‘rucksack’;

               —

               Annul the decision to apply a multiplier for the purpose of calculating the applicant's remuneration;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a successful candidate in the internal competition for change of category COM/PB/04, the notice for which was published before the date when the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that date, she was appointed by the defendant to the higher category, but her previous grade, step and multiplier were retained. However, her promotion points were re-set at zero.
   In her action, the applicant submits, first, that the contested decisions infringe the legal framework formed by the notice for the competition which she passed, and Articles 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of proportionality.
   The applicant claims, second, that those decisions also infringe the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. On one hand, the classification of successful candidates in the same competition or in competitions at the same level is set at different levels depending on whether recruitment occurs before or after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations. On the other hand, officials who did not pass the competition for change of category are at an advantage, in that they retain their promotion points while the applicant's ‘rucksack’ was re-set at zero.
   Lastly, according to the applicant, the contested decisions are contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as she was entitled to expect to be appointed at the grade given in the competition notice.


title: Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-47/98)

text:
C 151/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.5.98
The applicant also accuses the Commission of breaching              Instance on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali Terni SpA,
the terms of the decisions granting aid, and the principles         represented by Luca G. Radicato di Brozolo, of the Milan
of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
It states that the defendant abandoned its clear position of        chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
19 April 1996 by virtue of a decision taken almost two
years after submission of the financial report and that it
must therefore be concluded that there was a change of
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
attitude, at variance with instructions given earlier, and
                                                                    should:
also a lack of clear indications concerning chargeable
expenditure and the procedure to be followed for
obtaining prior confirmation as to whether expenditure
was chargeable. The applicant draws particular attention            Ð annul the Commission Decision of 21 January 1998
to the uncertainty cast upon its status as a network. In                 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
that connection, the applicant states that, in the past, the             ECSC Treaty (Case IV/35.814 Extra lega),
CEMR has managed numerous projects in conjunction
with the Commission, in which importance was always
attached to the contribution made by its network, upon
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul that Decision in so far as it
which the defendant was able to rely to ensure the success
                                                                         orders the applicant (a) to pay a fine (Article 2) and
of the project. Similarly, the Commission did not comply
                                                                         (b) to bring the infringement to an end (Article 4),
with the terms of the aid decisions concerning particular
headings and rates of joint financing.
                                                                    Ð in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on
                                                                         AST,
Moreover, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission's
conduct,       consisting     in   sending      contradictory
communications at very short intervals, without giving
any clarification of them, despite various requests to that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
effect, is indicative of manifest disfunction within the
Commission which is not compatible with the principle of
sound administration.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of
proportionality, in that the Commission states that staff           The decision at issue in this case is the same as the one in
and operational expenses cannot be taken into account               Case T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen Stainless v. Commission. The
since there is no specific management structure for the             pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
ECOS project in respect of the relevant headings. In its            similar to those put forward in the latter case. In support
view, the defendant's position on that point is liable to           of its claims, the applicant, an Italian producer of stainless
increase the costs to be shared amongst the local                   steel, alleges infringement of the ECSC Treaty and of
authorities making up its network.                                  numerous rules and of substantive principles concerning
                                                                    its application, and also acts ultra vires and infringements
                                                                    of essential procedural requirements. It is contended that
                                                                    the contested Decision does not clearly identify the
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of           infringement imputed to the undertakings. In that
equal treatment as far as it is concerned.                          connection, the defendant is accused of giving an incorrect
                                                                    and confused account and assessment of the facts and
                                                                    contradictory reasoning which is not set out with the
                                                                    required degree of detail.
                                                                    As regards the fine imposed, the applicant contends that
Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali                  the conditions for its imposition were not fulfilled.
Terni SpA against the Commission of the European                    Moreover, its amount was determined in breach of
                          Communities                               the relevant principles, including the principle of
                                                                    proportionality.
                        (Case T-47/98)
                         (98/C 151/23)
                                                                    In its third plea in law, the applicant alleges that the
                                                                    requirement that the infringement be brought to an end,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     contained in Article 4 of the Decision, is lacking in its
                                                                    subject-matter, is imprecise and has no legal basis.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-432/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/95)
   By order of 29 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-432/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Guidice di Pace de Lendinara): Lucio Trombin v Insight World Education System Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case C-79/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of 18 January 1999 in the case of Julia Schnorbus v Land Hessen

text:
15.5.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 136/11
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of                    (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main of 18 January 1999,
 the European Communities against the French Republic                  which was received at the Court Registry on 4 March 1999,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of Julia Schnorbus v Land
                                                                       Hessen on the following questions:
                         (Case C-76/99)
                                                                       1. Under Sections 24 (2) JAG and 14(a) JAO, where a decision
                        (1999/C 136/18)
                                                                           concerning the admission of applicants to practical legal
                                                                           training is required because the number of applicants
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               exceeds the number of training places, an applicant who
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 March                    has completed a duty of service which is only obligatory
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        on men (military or substitute service pursuant to Article
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,            12 a GG) is to be immediately admitted to the training and
assisted by Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address            does not have to satisfy any further requirements in that
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la             regard, whereas the admission of other applicants (female
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            and male) may be deferred by up to 12 months. Does such
                                                                           a rule fall within the scope of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9
                                                                           February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
the Court should:                                                          employment, vocational training and promotion, and
                                                                           working conditions (1)?
— declare that, by levying VAT on fixed allowances for the
    taking of medical samples for medical analysis, the French
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article        2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, then:
    13A(1)(b) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (the Sixth VAT
    Directive) (1);                                                        Does such a rule which, insofar as, exclusively in regard to
                                                                           performance of the duty of service, it results in the
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              preferential admission of male applicants to practical legal
                                                                           training, amount to direct discrimination on grounds of
                                                                           sex within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            76/207/EEC?
In the Commission’s view, the term ‘activities...closely related’      3. If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative:
to medical care includes the despatch of a sample by the
laboratory which has taken it to another, more specialised                 Does the rule cause indirect discrimination?
laboratory which is the only laboratory authorised under the
national rules to analyse the sample in question. It follows that
the exemption laid down by Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth              4. Does the fact that the said rule automatically results in the
Directive must apply to fixed allowances payable under those               preferential admission of men to training without a
rules by the specialised laboratory to the laboratory by which             decision on the matter being subject to an assessment of
the sample was taken. The distinction drawn in France, for the             the individual circumstances or of other relevant factors
purposes of the VAT system, between ordinary analyses and                  meriting consideration in the interests of the remaining
special analyses offends against the principles of neutrality and          applicants in itself preclude justification of the rule for the
uniformity which are applicable to intra-Community VAT.                    purposes of Article 2(4) of Directive 76/207/EEC because
                                                                           it is to that extent more than a measure to promote equal
                                                                           opportunity?
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                       5. If question 4 is to be answered in the negative:
                                                                           Is such a rule not justifiable under Article 2(4) of Directive
                                                                           76/207/EEC because only measures which serve to pro-
                                                                           mote equal opportunity in favour of women are permiss-
                                                                           ible thereunder?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
                                                                       6. If question 5 is to be answered in the negative:
gericht Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of
18 January 1999 in the case of Julia Schnorbus v Land
                              Hessen                                       Is the mere fact that only men are subject to duties of
                                                                           service under Articles 12 a (1) and (2) GG itself to be
                                                                           regarded as an actual existing inequality within the mean-
                         (Case C-79/99)                                    ing of Article 2(4) of Directive 76/207/EEC which in
                                                                           itself prejudicially affects men’s opportunities in the areas
                        (1999/C 136/19)                                    referred to in Article 1 (1) of the directive, or are the
                                                                           disadvantages faced by women in employment and the
                                                                           risks to which they are in fact exposed on grounds of their
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     sex also to be taken into account before such a conclusion
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                    can be reached?
 ---pagebreak--- C 136/12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.5.1999
7. Can the rule in Sections 24(2) JAG and 14(a) JAO be                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
    justified for the purposes of Article 2(4) of Directive            Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 5 March 1999
    76/207/EEC merely on the ground that it counterbalances            in the case of 1. V.O.F. Schieving-Nijstad, 2. W. G.
    disadvantages not faced by women as they are not subject                Schieving and 3. H. Nijstad against R. Groeneveld
    to a duty of service?
                                                                                (Case C-89/99)
8. Can Article 6 of Directive 76/207/EEC found a right of
    access to training where refusal of access is based on                                     (1999/C 136/22)
    discrimination and there are no other available sanctions
    in the form of rights to compensation?                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                         Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 5 March
                                                                       1999, received at the Court Registry on 15 March 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of 1. V.O.F. Schieving-Nijstad, 2.
                                                                       W. G. Schieving and 3. H. Nijstad against R. Groeneveld on
                                                                       the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                       1. Does Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement, in particular
Nederlanden by judgment of 26 February 1999 in the case
                                                                           Article 50(6), have direct effect?
of 1. Amsterdamsche Football Club ‘AJAX ’, 2. Langenberg
Participaties B.V., also trading under the name Fan Pro-               2. Is Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement to be interpreted
motions, v 1. S. C. Reule, 2. S. J. Reule, and 3. Fan Image                as meaning that provisional measures, within the meaning
                               B.V.                                        of subparagraphs (1) and (2) of that provision, must
                                                                           automatically lapse by operation of law either in the event
                         (Case C-84/99)                                    that the substantive proceedings are not instituted within
                                                                           the period prescribed for their commencement in the
                        (1999/C 136/20)                                    provisional measure or, in the absence of the determination
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     of such a period, where the substantive proceedings are
European Communities by judgment of 26 February 1999 of                    not commenced within 20 working days or 31 calendar
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                        days (whichever is the longer period); alternatively, in order
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on                  for the provisional measure to lapse, is it (invariably)
9 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                      necessary for an appeal to have been lodged by the party
1. Amsterdamsche Football Club ‘AJAX’, 2. Langenberg Partici-              against whom that measure has been ordered?
paties B.V., also trading under the name Fan Promotions, v             3. Where the time-limit within which the substantive pro-
1. S. C. Reule, 2. S. J. Reule, and 3. Fan Image B.V. on the               ceedings must be brought is not prescribed in the pro-
following question: Does Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement              visional measures ordered, does it commence on:
have direct effect?
                                                                           (a) the day after the date on which the court ordered the
                                                                                provisional measure in question; or
                                                                           (b) the day after the date on which the decision ordering
                                                                                the provisional measure was served on the defendant;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                           or
Grande Instance, Béthune, by judgment of that court of
24 March 1998 in the case of Roquette Frères SA against                    (c) the day after the date on which the decision ordering
              the Direction des Services Fiscaux                                the provisional measure became definitive and no
                                                                                longer open to challenge; or
                         (Case C-88/99)
                                                                           (d) at any other point in time?
                        (1999/C 136/21)                                4. Where a court orders a provisional measure, must it of its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     own motion fix a time-limit within which substantive
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                        proceedings are to be instituted, or may it fix such a
Grande Instance (High Court), Béthune of 24 March 1998,                    time-limit only if an application is made to that effect?
received at the Court Registry on 15 March 1999, for a                 5. Where a court is called upon in appeal proceedings to
preliminary ruling in the case of Roquette Frères SA against               adjudicate on a measure ordered by a lower court in
the Direction des Services Fiscaux (Tax Department). The                   proceedings at first instance, and that appellate court
Tribunal de Grande Instance, Béthune seeks a ruling from the               confirms that measure, is it open to the appellate court to
Court of Justice on the legality of Article 190 of the Livre des           prescribe, either of its own motion or on application by
Procédures Fiscales (Book of Tax Procedures) and, in particular,           one of the parties, a time-limit within the meaning
on the question whether the French Government was entitled,                hereinbefore referred to, if the court seised of the matter at
under Community law, to make a distinction between the date                first instance has not done so?
on which an action became time-barred and the date on which
recovery became time-barred, entailing a difference in the             6. Is Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement applicable where that
treatment of actions under national law and actions com-                   agreement enters into force in the Contracting State
menced on the basis of a judgment of the Court of Justice of               concerned on a date following the closure of the trial
the European Communities in which a provision of national                  procedure at first instance but before the court seised of
law was found to be illegal.                                               the first-instance proceedings has delivered its decision?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2001 in Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000 — Registration of a protected geographical indication — "Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest" — Measure of general application — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 118/40              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
                                                                         Martı́n against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                      of 30 January 2001
                                                                                (Case T-29/01)
in Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste v Commission of                                               (2001/C 118/110)
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000
— Registration of a protected geographical indication —
‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ — Measure of general                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                application — Inadmissibility)                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
                                                                         Martı́n, residing in Madrid, represented by Oscar González
                        (2001/C 118/109)                                 Correas, lawyer.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 8 November 2000
                                                                               (Ref. 2974);
In Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste, established at Morlaas              —     declare that the applicant is entitled to the full installation
(France), represented by A. Lyon-Caen, lawyer with a right of                  allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII to
audience before the Conseil d’État and the Cour de Cassation,                 the Staff Regulations and the full resettlement allowance
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   provided for in Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v Commission of the European                       Regulations, as laid down in Article 71 of those Regu-
Communities (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and X. Lewis) —                    lations;
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1338/2000 of 26 June 2000 supplementing the Annex to                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in
the Register of protected designations of origin and protected
geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indi-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
cations and designations of origin for agricultural products
and foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 154, p. 5), as regards registration as
a protected geographical indication of the name ‘Canard à foie           The applicant in the present dispute is a former Commission
gras du Sud-Ouest’ — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                  official who is disputing the appointing authority’s decision to
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı́a-              refuse him both an installation allowance for settling in
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an           Belgium, on the ground that he was reinstated in service
order on 30 January 2001, the operative part of which is as              following the withdrawal of his previous status of permanent
follows:                                                                 invalidity, and a resettlement allowance for Spain after his
                                                                         service terminated. The applicant claims that he is entitled
                                                                         to those allowances in accordance with the provisions of
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       Article 5(1), the first paragraph of Article 6(1), Article 7(1)(a)
                                                                         and (b) and Article 9(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                         Regulations.
2.   The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs of
     the Commission.
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant submits:
                                                                         —     that a finding of invalidity is a matter governed by the
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                                     rules and depends not on the individual but on an
                                                                               objective situation;
                                                                         —     that, according to settled case-law, an established official
                                                                               is entitled to the disputed allowances even when the place
                                                                               in which he has settled has not changed;


title: Case T-650/11: Action brought on 19 December 2011 — Dimension Data Belgium v Parliament

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/28

         Action brought on 19 December 2011 — Dimension Data Belgium v Parliament
   (Case T-650/11)
   2012/C 73/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dimension Data Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Levert and M. Velghe, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament, notified to the applicant by email of 18 October 2011, to reject the applicant’s tender for lot No 1 of the contract PE-ITEC-DIT-ITIM-TELSIS and to award lot No 1 of that contract to the company BT Belgique;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to state the reasons for the contested decision as the Parliament did not communicate any characteristics of the successful tender to the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation of transparency which is incumbent on the Parliament under Articles 89, 92, 97 and 100 of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 138 of the Implementing Rules (2) as the Parliament did not give a full, clear and precise definition of the criterion for evaluating the price of the tenders.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in describing the criteria for evaluating the quality of the tenders, infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of Article 138(2) of the Implementing Rules, as the contracting authority took into consideration an evaluation criterion which is not designed to identify the tender which is most economically advantageous.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in respect of the quality of the financial details and infringement of Article 139 of the Implementing Rules in the award of lot No 1 of the disputed contract to the company BT Belgique since its tender is unusually low, with the result that it should be rejected by the Parliament or, failing that, be regarded as not complying with the specifications.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-29/03: Commission of the European Communities v Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC) (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract — Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default)

text:
C 289/10                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and        2.   Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
     Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of
     waste, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                 (1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.
     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of
     the Directive;
2.   Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
     Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       in Case C-29/03: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             ties v Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                                   (ITEC) (1)
                       of 16 October 2003                                    (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                                Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default)
in Case C-433/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                                          (2003/C 289/19)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                         (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Directive 92/100/EEC — Copyright — Remuneration of
authors in the event of public lending of their literary or
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           artistic works)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                         (2003/C 289/18)
                    (Language of the case: French)                           In Case C-29/03, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito) v Instituto Tecnoló-
                                                                             gico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC), a private establishment
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       established in Lisbon (Portugal): Application by the Com-
                   in the European Court Reports)                            mission under Article 238 EC to recover EUR 62 236,65
                                                                             advanced by it to the defendant in relation to performance of
                                                                             Contract No IN10278I 20364/0, together with default interest,
In Case C-433/02, Commission of the European Communities                     the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
(Agent: K. Banks) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx):                   President of the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Application for a declaration that, by failing to apply the                  (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
provisions on the public lending right provided for in Council               Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which
Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right                     it:
and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in
the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61), the               1.   Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under                     to repay to the Commission of the European Communities the
Articles 1 and 5 of that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                    sum of EUR 62 236,65, together with default interest at the
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                          rate prescribed by Portuguese law, calculated in accordance with
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and                             the provisions of Portaria No 263/99 of 12 April 1999 until
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                         30 April 2003 and Portaria No 291/2003 of 8 April 2003
R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October                   as from 1 May 2003, until the debt is paid in full;
2003, in which it:
                                                                             2.   Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
1.   Declares that, by failing to apply the provisions on the public              to pay the costs.
     lending right provided for in 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        (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
     property, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;


title: Case C-78/06: Action brought on  9 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/13

         Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-78/06)
   (2006/C 74/26)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Alcover San Pedro and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 18 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.


title: Removal from the register of C-22/95

text:
4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/29
          Removal from the register of C-22/95 (1)                 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Amministrativo
                        (98/C 209/60)                              Regionale, Lazio): Nuova Antenna Tre SpA v. Ministero
                                                                   delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni.
By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-22/95 (reference for a         (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 12 May 1998                                                     of 14 May 1998
in Case T-184/94: Martin O'Casey v. Commission of the              in Case T-295/94: Buchmann GmbH v. Commission of
                  European Communities (1)                                         the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Annulment of the decision rejecting the               (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof
applicant's candidature for the post of assistant to the           of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Determination of
Deputy Director of the ITER joint work site at Naka,                           the amount Ð Statement of reasons)
Japan Ð Offer of the post Ð Breach of the agreement Ð                                      (98/C 209/62)
                     Claim for damages)
                        (98/C 209/61)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   In Case T-295/94: Buchmann GmbH, established at
               (Language of the case: English)                     Rinnthal, Germany, represented by Helmut Braun, Rechts-
                                                                   anwalt, Dresden, 21 Bergmannstraûe, Dresden, Germany
                                                                   v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-184/94: Martin O'Casey, a member of the                  Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal and Dirk Schroeder) Ð
temporary staff of the JET Joint Undertaking, represented          application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, and Teertha          601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
Gupta, Barrister, with an adress for service in Luxembourg         Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                 OJ, L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third
Cessange v. Commission of the European Communities                 Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
(Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Richard Lyal) Ð                Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh,
Application for annulment of the letter from the Deputy            A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
Director of the International Thermonuclear Experimental           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Reactor and head of the joint work site at Naka, Japan, of         14 May 1998 in which it:
16 July 1993 informing the applicant that his candidature
for the post of administrative assistant to the said Deputy
Director was rejected and of the decision contained in that        1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
letter to reject his candidature, and for damages to                   Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of
compensate for the material and non-material harm thus                 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
suffered by the applicant Ð the Court of First Instance                of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).
(Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, R.
García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio                2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU
judgment on 12 May 1998 in which it:                                   2 150 000.
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.                           3. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                                                                       claims.
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     4. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including the
                                                                       costs of the proceedings for interim relief.
(1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.