title: Case C-321/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 2 — Concept of a sign of which a trade mark may consist — Transparent bin or collection chamber forming part of the external surface of a vacuum cleaner)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks
   (Case C-321/03) (1)

   (Trade marks - Approximation of laws - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 2 - Concept of a sign of which a trade mark may consist - Transparent bin or collection chamber forming part of the external surface of a vacuum cleaner)
   (2007/C 56/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dyson Ltd

      Defendant: Registrar of Trade Marks
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — Interpretation of Article 3(3) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Mark consisting of a functional characteristic (transparent plastic container) forming part of the external surface of a vacuum cleaner
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 2 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the subject-matter of an application for trade mark registration, such as that lodged in the main proceedings, which relates to all the conceivable shapes of a transparent bin or collection chamber forming part of the external surface of a vacuum cleaner, is not a ‘sign’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore is not capable of constituting a trade mark within the meaning thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 4.10.2003.


title: Case T-271/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — LD v EUIPO (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — 2011/2012 appraisal period — Distortion of facts — Error of law — Breach of fiduciary duty — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — LD v EUIPO
   (Case T-271/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appraisal report - 2011/2012 appraisal period - Distortion of facts - Error of law - Breach of fiduciary duty - Legitimate expectations))
   (2017/C 095/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: LD (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal [confidential], (2) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Declares that LD is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property office in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

      (2)  Confidential data omitted.


title: Case T-205/99: Action brought on 15 September 1999 by HYPER S.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.11.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 333/33
The applicant points out that, whereas the Council invoked                and Dirk Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Ehle & Schiller,
systematically, for each document, Article 4(1) of its Decision           Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
93/731/EC (‘the Decision’), the Commission referred to the                Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel Welter.
Decision and indicated that the documents requested could
undermine the position of the EU in current and future                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
negotiations with Russia and could not, therefore, be made
available to the applicant.                                               1. annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 1999
                                                                               (REM: 14/98);
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:                     2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
— it is necessary to analyse and consider the relevance and
     weight of the denials in question in the light of the overall        Pleas in law and main arguments
     transparency aimed at by the Decision;
                                                                          The applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments are similar to
— the exception relating to international relations must                  those in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97, T-191/97,
     be interpreted restrictively and applied carefully on a              T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/97,
     case-by-case basis;                                                  T-218/97 (1), T-279/97 (2), T-280/97 (2), T-293/97 (3) and
                                                                          T-147/99 (4).
— in the present case the Council and the Commission are
     using what they consider to be part of their discretionary           (1) See, as regards all these cases, OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997, pp. 17 to
     authority to deny all rights to access to the requested                  25.
     documentation;                                                       (2) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 24.
                                                                          (3) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 24.
                                                                          (4) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999, p. 41.
— agendas of meetings held in 1998, possibly without critical
     annotations, are mere lists of tractanda which are usually
     made available to the press in connection with meetings,
     so that it is hardly conceivable that the release of such
     agendas, after the lapse of a year, could constitute a
     dangerous or prejudicial measure liable to have an adverse
     effect on the international relations of the European Union;         Action brought on 15 September 1999 by Métropole
                                                                          Télévision (M6) against the Commission of the European
— it is a fundamental principle of Community law that                                                  Communities
     citizens of the European Union should be granted the
     widest and fullest possible access to documents of the                                          (Case T-206/99)
     institutions of the European Union;
                                                                                (1999/C 333/75)
— in the present case, not only is the public interest at stake,
     but also the private interest of the applicant who needs to
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     be able to defend before the Finnish courts his case that
     the contents of the requested documents do not have the
     highly confidential nature that is currently alleged by the          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     Council and the Commission.                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                          15 September 1999 by Métropole Télévision (M6), having its
                                                                          registered office in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by
                                                                          Didier Théophile, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                          — annul the Commission’s decision of 29 June 1999;
Action brought on 15 September 1999 by HYPER S.r.l.                       — order the Commission to pay all the costs.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case T-205/99)
                                                                          The applicant contests the Commission’s decision of 29 June
                          (1999/C 333/74)                                 1999 rejecting the complaint submitted by it against the
                                                                          European Broadcasting Union (EBU), concerning an alleged
                                                                          infringement by the EBU of Article 81(1) EC by virtue of its
                   (Language of the Case: German)                         refusal to accept the applicant’s application for membership
                                                                          of that organisation. That decision forms part of the aftermath
                                                                          to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 1996
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 in Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Métropole Télévision and Others v Commission [1996] ECR
European Communities on 15 September 1999 by HYPER                        II-649, in which the Court of First Instance annulled a decision
S.r.l., of Limena (Italien Republic), represented by Dietrich Ehle        exempting the EBU’s internal provisions and other regulations


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 November 1998 in Case T-41/97: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Council of the European Union (Disclaimer of jurisdiction) (1999/C 1/26)

text:
4.1.1999              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 1/13
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and Karel Johannes
                      of 30 October 1998                             Defares, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue
in Case T-290/94 (92): Ford James France, formerly                   Goethe, supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the European                         represented by Marc Fierstra, Legal Adviser, acting as
                        Communities (1)                              Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo, against Council
                      (Taxation of costs)
                                                                     of the European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen
                         (1999/C 1/25)                               Huber and Guus Houttuin), supported by Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn),
                                                                     Kingdom of Spain, represented by Luis PeÂrez de Ayala
               (Language of the case: French)                        Becerril, Abogado del Estado, of the Community Legal
                                                                     Affairs Department, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 Rue
In Case T-290/94 (92): Ford James France, formerly
                                                                     Emmanuel Servais, French Republic, represented by
Kaysersberg SA, established at Kunheim (France),
                                                                     Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Head of Subdirectorate in the
represented by Dominique Voillemot and Jacques-Philippe
                                                                     Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
Gunther, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Claude Chavance, Foreign Affairs Secretary, acting as
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Goethe,     against     Commission of the            European
                                                                     French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II, and Italian
Communities (Agents: initially Francisco GonzaÂlez Diaz,
                                                                     Republic, represented by Umberto Colesanti, acting as
of its Legal Service, and GeÂraud de Bergues, a national
                                                                     Agent, assisted by Francesca Quadri, Avvocato dello Stato,
official on secondment to the Commission, subsequently
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
Giuliano Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and Guy
                                                                     Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde Ð application for
Charrier, a national official on secondment to the
                                                                     annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of
Commission), supported by Procter & Gamble GmbH,
                                                                     17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
established at Schwalbach (Germany), represented by
                                                                     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe
                                                                     countries and territories (OJ L 51, 21.2.1997, p. 1) Ð the
Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, with an address
                                                                     Courts of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger
                                                                     M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H.
and Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill Ð application for
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 November 1998, the
taxation of the costs to be paid by the applicant to the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
intervener following the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 27 November 1997 in Case T-290/94
Kaysersberg v. Commission [1997] ECR II-2137 Ð the                   1. The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in
Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended                          Case T-41/97 Antillean Rice Mills v. Council, in order
Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                  that the Court of Justice may rule on the applications
C. W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A. W. H. Meij and M. Vilaras,                  for annulment.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 October
1998 in which it:
                                                                     2. Costs are reserved.
Fixes the total amount of costs to be paid by Ford James
France to Procter & Gamble GmbH at BEF 1 500 000.                    (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 316, 12.11.1994.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 October 1998
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     in Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v.
                    of 16 November 1998                                      Commission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-41/97: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Council of               (Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                    the European Union (1)                           Application for reclassification in grade Ð Objection of
                  (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                           inadmissibility Ð Material new fact Ð Admissibility)
                         (1999/C 1/26)                                                       (1999/C 1/27)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case T-41/97, Antillean Rice Mills NV, established in             In Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal, an
Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by Winfred                official of the Commission of the European Communities,


title: Case T-250/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Knut IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin (KNUT — DER EISBÄR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KNUT – DER EISBÄR — Earlier national word mark KNUD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Knut IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin (KNUT — DER EISBÄR)
   (Case T-250/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KNUT – DER EISBÄR - Earlier national word mark KNUD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2013/C 336/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Knut IP Management Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by C. Jaeckel, then by J. Steinberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Schulz and P. Vatankhah, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2010 (Case R 650/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG and Knut IP Management Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Knut IP Management Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-462/04: Action brought on 30 November 2004 by HEG Limited and Graphite India Limited against the Council of the European Union

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/17

         Action brought on 30 November 2004 by HEG Limited and Graphite India Limited against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-462/04)
   (2005/C 69/34)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 November 2004 by HEG Limited, New Delhi, India and Graphite India Limited, Kolkata, India, represented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer and J. Branton, Solicitor.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that Council Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 1628/2004 (1) of 13 September 2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India is null and void;

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that Council Regulation (EC) No 1629/2004 (2) of 13 September 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India is null and void;

               —

               order the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following complaints introduced on behalf of Community producers of graphite electrodes, the Commission initiated parallel anti-subsidy and anti-dumping proceedings against imports of the product concerned from India. These proceedings led to the adoption of the contested regulation.
   The applicants are two Indian companies which manufacture and export the product concerned to the European Union. In support of their application they submit first of all that the Commission services and finally the Council failed to investigate other obvious sources of injury, namely dumped imports from other third countries, even when presented with strong evidence of them by Indian exporters. On this basis the applicants invoke a violation of Article 9 paragraph 5 of Regulation 384/96 (3) and of Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT (Anti-dumping agreement), a violation of the principle of non-discrimination and of fundamental procedural requirements and a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicants further submit that both contested regulations are vitiated by the infringement of fundamental procedural requirements provided by Regulation 2026/97 (4) and Regulation 384/96 respectively as well as by the Anti-dumping agreement and the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures, having imposed anti-dumping and countervailing measures on the basis of a Community of 25 Member States even though the investigation was initiated and conducted on the basis of a 15 Member States.
   The applicants also contend that Regulation 1628/2004 imposes countervailing duties in inappropriate amounts in respect of the Indian DEPB post-export scheme thus violating Regulation 2026/97, the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures and the principle of proportionality, committing a manifest error of assessment and breaching fundamental procedural requirements.
   The applicants also invoke violations of Regulations 2026/97 and 384/96 respectively, of the anti-dumping agreement and the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures, as well as a manifest error of assessment, contending that the contested measures base material injury determination on data made unreliable by the existence of anti-competitive market sharing and price fixing agreements between the members of the Community industry, confirmed and sanctioned by a decision of the Commission itself.
   Finally, the applicants contend that the contested measures respectively violate Article 3 paragraph 2 of Regulation 384/96 and Article 8 paragraph 7 of Regulation 2026/97 in failing to remove the effects of other factors in determining its final injury analysis and thereby attributing injury caused by other factors to Indian imports.

      (1)  OJ L 295, 18.9.2004, p. 4.

      (2)  OJ L 295, 18.9.2004, p. 10.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.


title: Case T-78/10: Action brought on 19 February 2010 — Lehning Entreprise v OHIM — Certmedica International (L112)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/55

         Action brought on 19 February 2010 — Lehning Entreprise v OHIM — Certmedica International (L112)
   (Case T-78/10)
   2010/C 113/86
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Lehning Entreprise (Sainte-Barbe, France) (represented by: P. Demoly, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Certmedica International GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               In view of the similarity between the signs and the goods at issue, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks L.114 and L112 at issue in respect of all the goods in Class 5 covered by their registrations. Consequently, the applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the application of Lehning Entreprise for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the following goods: ‘Sanitary preparations’ and ‘Dietetic foodstuffs concentrates with a shellfish base (including chitosan)’, and should uphold the remainder of the decision.

               —

               Lastly, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, it would be particularly inequitable for the applicant to bear the non-recoverable costs which it has had to incur in these proceedings that are manifestly unjustified. It therefore claims that the Court should order Certmedica International GmbH to pay it the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark ‘L112’ for goods in Classes 5 and 29 (Community trade mark No 2 349 728)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Certmedica International GmbH

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Lehning Entreprise

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the national mark ‘L.114’ registered in France for goods in Class 5 (No 1 312 700)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: application granted for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned for the goods in Class 5 in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal of Certmedica International upheld in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8, 52 and 53 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue in relation to the goods ‘Sanitary preparations’ and ‘Dietetic foodstuffs concentrates with a shellfish base (including chitosan)’


title: Case T-818/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014  — BSCA v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/42

         Action brought on 19 December 2014 — BSCA v Commission
   (Case T-818/14)
   (2015/C 065/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: P. Frühling, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 3 of the contested decision in that the Commission decided that the measures unlawfully implemented by Belgium, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of BSCA under the sub-concession agreement of 15 April 2002 between SOWAER and BSCA, under addendum No 3 of 29 March 2002 to the agreement between the Region of Wallonia and BSCA and under the investment decision of the Region of Wallonia of 3 April 2003, constitute, since 4 April 2014, State aid incompatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(1) of that treaty;

               —

               consequently, annul Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6849 final of 1 October 2014 on measures unlawfully implemented by Belgium in favour of Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) and Ryanair (State aid SA.14093 (C76/2002)) in which the Commission found that the measures implemented under (i) the sub-concession agreement of 15 April 2002 concluded by the Société wallonne des aéroports (‘SOWAER’) and BSCA, (ii) addendum No 3 of 29 March 2002 to the agreement between the Region of Wallonia and BSCA and (iii) the investment decision of the Region of Wallonia of 3 April 2003 constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market. Consequently, the Commission demanded their recovery.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment by the Commission in setting the date of the decision for the Region of Wallonia to provide BSCA with funding.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s action was time-barred in that the procedure for the investigation of the measures at issue was opened more than 10 years after the decisions to grant those measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission classified the investments and major repairs to the ILS (Instrument Landing System) and to the runway lighting as economic.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission found that the non-economic percentage of the cost of the investments made for the new terminal building was only 7 %.

               5.

               Fifth and sixth plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact and manifest errors of assessment by the Commission in determining the net present values of the measures at issue.

               6.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and an error of law by the Commission in determining the additional fee to be paid from 1 January 2016 which has the effect of rendering any calculation of the amount of that fee impossible.

               7.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons by the Commission in its analysis of the market at issue and of the alleged distortions of competition between Charleroi airport and Brussels National airport.

               8.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance Of 6 October 1999 in Case T-110/97: Kneissl Dachstein Sportartikel AG v Commission of the European Communities (Decision authorising State aid for restructuring - Starting point for the time-limit for bringing an action against a third party - Requirements for the compatibility of the aid)

text:
C 352/32                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.12.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 12 October 1999
                                                                                of 6 October 1999
in Case T-216/96: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly
Massalombarda Colombani SpA v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                               in Case T-110/97: Kneissl Dachstein Sportartikel AG v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund — Withdrawal of financial assistance —
Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 — Regulation (EEC)                              (Decision authorising State aid for restructuring — Starting
No 4253/88 — Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 — Regulation                      point for the time-limit for bringing an action against a
(EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Principle of the legality of the                third party — Requirements for the compatibility of the aid)
penalty imposed — Legitimate expectations — Abuse of
power — Principle of proportionality — Statement of
                              reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/57)
                          (1999/C 352/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-216/96: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly                 In Case T-110/97: Kneissl Dachstein Sportartikel AG, estab-
Massalombarda Colombani SpA, established at Massa Lombar-                  lished at Molln (Austria), represented by Georg Divok, of the
da (Italy), represented by Marina Averani and Andrea Pisanes-              Vienna Bar, against Commission of the European Communities
chi, of the Sienna Bar, and Paolo de Caterini, of the Rome Bar,            (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz and Frank Paul), supported by the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               Republic of Austria (Agent: Christine Stix-Hackl and Michael
Charles Turk, 13B, Avenue Guillaume, against Commission of                 Krassnigg) and by HTM Sport- und Freizeitgeräte AG, estab-
the European Communities (Agents: Paolo Ziotti, Francesco                  lished at Schwechat (Austria), represented by Wolfgang Knapp,
Paolo Ruggeri Laderchi and Massimo Moretto) — application                  of the Brussels and Frankfurt Bars, and Till Müller-Ibold, of the
for the annulment of Commission Decision C (96) 2760 of                    Frankfurt Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
3 October 1996 withdrawing the financial assistance granted                the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8 to 10 Rue Mathias
from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                      Hardt — application for the annulment of Commission
Fund to the company Massalombarda Colombani SpA by                         Decision 97/81/EC of 30 July 1996 concerning aid granted by
Commission Decision C (90) 950/356 of 29 July 1990, and,                   the Austrian Government to the undertaking Head Tyrolia
in so far as is necessary, the avoidance of any act of                     Mares in the form of injections of capital (OJ 1997 L 25, p. 26)
the Commission connected with that decision, in particular                 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Working Document VI/1216/86-IT on the fixing of the                        Composition), composed of A. Potocki, President, and K. Le-
maximum allowable financial assistance from the European                   naerts, C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Pala-
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, ‘Orientation’ sec-               cio González, Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a
tion, in the context of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of              judgment on 6 October 1999, in which it:
15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the
conditions under which agricultural products are processed
and marketed (OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1) — the Court of First                     1. Dismisses the application;
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Admin-
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October            2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission
1999, in which it:                                                              and by the intervener Head Tyrolia Mares;
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                           3. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs together with those
     incurred by the defendant.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.


title: Case C-539/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Merck Canada Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd v Sigma Pharmaceuticals plc (Reference for a preliminary ruling — 2003 Act of Accession to the European Union — Annex IV — Chapter 2 — Specific Mechanism — Importation of a patented pharmaceutical product — Prior notification requirement)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Merck Canada Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd v Sigma Pharmaceuticals plc
   (Case C-539/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - 2003 Act of Accession to the European Union - Annex IV - Chapter 2 - Specific Mechanism - Importation of a patented pharmaceutical product - Prior notification requirement))
   (2015/C 118/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Merck Canada Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd

      Defendant: Sigma Pharmaceuticals plc

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The second paragraph of the Specific Mechanism provided for in Chapter 2 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as not requiring the holder, or beneficiary, of a patent or supplementary protection certificate to give notification of his intention to oppose a proposed importation before invoking his rights under the first paragraph of that mechanism. However, if such a holder or beneficiary does not indicate such an intention during the one-month waiting period laid down in the second paragraph of the mechanism, the person proposing to import the pharmaceutical product in question may legitimately apply to the competent authorities for authorisation to import the product and, where appropriate, import and market it. The Specific Mechanism thus denies that holder or his beneficiary the possibility of relying on his rights under the first paragraph of the mechanism with regard to any importation and marketing of the pharmaceutical product carried out before such an intention was indicated.

               2)

               The second paragraph of the Specific Mechanism must be interpreted as meaning that the notification must be given to the holder, or beneficiary, of the patent or the supplementary protection certificate, the latter term designating any person enjoying the rights conferred by law on the holder of the patent or the supplementary protection certificate.

               3)

               The second paragraph of the Specific Mechanism is to be interpreted as not requiring the person intending to import or market the pharmaceutical product in question to give notification himself, provided that it is possible from the notification to identify that person clearly.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case C-338/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH
   (Case C-338/09)
   2009/C 282/42
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH

      Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 et seq. EC and with EU competition law for the purposes of Article 81 et seq. EC for a provision of national law relating to the grant of authorisation to operate a motor vehicle service, and thus to provide public transport, where fixed stopping points are called at regularly in accordance with a timetable, to lay down the following as conditions for such authorisation:

                           (a)

                           that the EU undertaking making the application must already have a registered office or a branch in the State of the authorising authority before commencing operation of the service and in particular at the time the licence is granted;

                           (b)

                           that the EU undertaking making the application must already have a registered office or a branch in the State of the authorising authority at the latest from the time operation of the service commences?

               2.

               Is it compatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 et seq. EC and with EU competition law for the purposes of Article 81 et seq. EC for a provision of national law relating to the grant of authorisation to operate a motor vehicle service, and thus to provide public transport where fixed stops are called at regularly in accordance with a timetable, to provide that authorisation is to be refused where, if the motor vehicle service applied for commences, the revenues of a competing undertaking running on a partially or entirely identical short route will be so substantially reduced by this service that the continued running of the service operated by the competing undertaking will no longer be economically viable?


title: Case C-79/06: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/27

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-79/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/52)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/27

         Removal from the register of Case C-147/05 (1)

   (2006/C 36/56)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   By order of 14 November 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-147/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case T-348/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/40

         Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-348/14)
   2014/C 253/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, President Yanukovich, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time subject to investigation for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.


title: Case C-469/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Mauro Infante v Italian Republic

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/4

         Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Mauro Infante v Italian Republic
   (Case C-469/16)
   (2017/C 095/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mauro Infante (represented by: M. Iervolino, lawyer)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   By order of 13 December 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the application and that Mr Mauro is to bear his own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases C–162/01 P and C–163/01 P: Edouard Bouma and Bernard M.J.B. Beusmans v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers having entered into a non-marketing undertaking — SLOM 1983 producers — Non-resumption of production on expiry of the undertaking)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Joined Cases C–162/01 P and C–163/01 P: Edouard Bouma and Bernard M.J.B. Beusmans v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers having entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM 1983 producers - Non-resumption of production on expiry of the undertaking)
   (2004/C 118/15)
   Language of the cases: Dutch
   In Joined Cases C–162/01 P and C–163/01 P: Edouard Bouma, residing in Rutten (Netherlands), Bernard M.J.B. Beusmans, residing in Noorbeek (Netherlands), (legal representative: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk) – two appeals lodged against the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2001 in Case T–533/93 Bouma v Council and Commission [2001] ECR II–203 and Case T–73/94 Beusmans v Council and Commission [2001] ECR II–223 and seeking to have those judgments set aside; the other parties to the proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agent: A.–M. Colaert) and Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, delivered a judgment on 29 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The appeals are dismissed.

               (2)

               Mr Bouma and Mr Beusmans are ordered to pay the respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.


title: Joined Cases C-208/06 and C-209/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf Germany) — Medion AG (C-208/06) v Hauptzollamt Duisburg, Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-209/06) v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Camcorders)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf Germany) — Medion AG (C-208/06) v Hauptzollamt Duisburg, Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-209/06) v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   (Joined Cases C-208/06 and C-209/06) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Camcorders)
   (2007/C 283/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Medion AG (C-208/06), Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-209/06)

      Defendants: Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-208/06), Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-209/06)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) — Sub-headings 8525 40 91 (Video camera recorders, only able to record sound and images taken by the television camera) and 8425 40 99 (other) — Video camera recorders unable, at the time of importation, to receive and record data coming from other equipment, but whose ‘dv-in’ option can be subsequently activated without the manufacturer or seller mentioning or supporting that possibility
   Operative part of the judgment
   A camcorder may be classified under subheading 8525 40 99 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2263/2000 of 13 October 2000, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, only if the function for recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated camera or microphone is active at the time of customs clearance or if, even though the manufacturer did not intend to emphasise that characteristic, that function may be activated subsequently by simple modification of the apparatus by a user who does not have special skills, without modification of the camcorder's hardware. Where the camcorder is activated subsequently, it is also necessary, first, that, once activated, it functions in a manner similar to that of another camcorder whose function for recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated camera or microphone is active at the time of customs clearance and, second, that it functions independently. The existence of those conditions must be capable of being ascertained at the time of customs clearance. It is for the national court to establish whether those conditions are fulfilled. If those conditions are not fulfilled the camcorder must be classified under subheading 8525 40 91 of the Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-272/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-272/17)
   (2017/C 277/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: K.M. Zyla

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a worker who, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71 (1) or Regulation No 883/2004, (2) is insured under the social security system of the Member State concerned for part of a calendar year, and who, when the contributions for that insurance are levied, is entitled to only a portion of the contributions component of the general tax credit which is determined on a time-proportionate basis in relation to the period of insurance, if that worker, for the remainder of the calendar year, was not insured under the social security system of that Member State, and was resident in another Member State for the remainder of the calendar year and earned (virtually) his entire annual income in the first-mentioned Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Case C-531/10: Action brought on 16 November 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/22

         Action brought on 16 November 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-531/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/37
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra and J. Javorský, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, inasmuch as the Ministry of Transport, Postal Services and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic concluded an agreement for the provision of consultancy services having a cross-border dimension without issuing a call for tenders, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations of non-discrimination and transparency under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1)

               —

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Ministry of Transport, Postal Services and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic concluded an agreement for the provision of consultancy services which had a cross-border dimension on grounds of the value of the contract, of the technical information required and of the fact that the previous provider of the services was a company from another Member State. The contract was concluded without a call for tenders. There was thus a clear breach of the principle of transparency, since entities other than those notified by the ministry at its own discretion were not informed of that contract, and did not have the opportunity to submit tenders. By its breach of the principle of transparency, the ministry simultaneously breached the prohibition on discrimination, since it dealt differently with the group of undertakings which it notified of the public contract and the group — including undertakings established outside the Slovak Republic — which were not notified but could have had an interest therein. By the fact that the award of the contract was not made subject to open competition, the ministry itself renounced the advantages arising in that situation from the existence of the internal market, and which would enable the ministry to receive the most advantageous tender for the provision of consultancy services from amongst a large number of undertakings from the European Union.

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 July 2004 in Case C-262/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Television broadcasting — Advertising — National measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State, in the case of indirect television advertising resulting from the appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the retransmission of certain sporting events — ‘Loi Evin’)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 13 July 2004
   in Case C-262/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) - Television broadcasting - Advertising - National measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State, in the case of indirect television advertising resulting from the appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the retransmission of certain sporting events - ‘Loi Evin’)
   (2004/C 228/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-262/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji and K. Beal) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans) — application for a declaration that, by making television broadcasting in France by French television channels of sporting events taking place in other Member States conditional on the prior removal of advertising for alcoholic beverages, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha-Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), R. Schintgen, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case T-312/02: Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Lucio Gussetti against Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.12.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 305/29
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Lucio Gussetti
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision adopted on 31 July 2002 by the
      Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation                                       (Case T-312/02)
      in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs),
      concerning appeal No R 0363/2000-2, in so far as it
      rejects the application for registration of the mark ‘Limo’                                  (2002/C 305/61)
      for goods in Class 9, being ‘Lasers for non-medical
      purposes, in particular diode lasers, lasers for measuring
      technology, lasers for the treatment of materials, lasers                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      for the printing industry, lasers for material testing
      and quality control, lasers for data processing or data
      transmission; optical and/or electronic apparatus and
      instruments, in particular imaging systems, microoptical
      systems, control electronics, optical systems with inte-           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      grated electronics and/or light sources; lenses; optical           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      lenses, supplementary lenses, prisms, corrective lenses;           European Communities on 10 October 2002 by Lucio Gus-
      diffraction apparatus (microscopy)’ and in Class 10, being         setti, represented by Massimo Merola, avvocato.
      ‘Lasers for medical purposes’;
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      annul the decision of the Directorate General Adminis-
                                                                                tration of the Commission, notified by letter ADMIN B.3
                                                                                D(02) 8305 of 15 February 2002 by which, pursuant to
                                                                                Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the Administration,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 with effect from 1 June 2001, retroactively deducted
                                                                                EUR 273.48 from his monthly salary;
The Community trade            the word mark ‘LIMO’ — appli-             —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
mark applied for:              cation No 1290022
Goods or services:             Goods in Classes 9, 10 and 11
                               (including inter alia lasers for non-     Pleas in law and main arguments
                               medical purposes, lasers for medi-
                               cal purposes and lighting appar-
                               atus and installations)
                                                                         The applicant in the present case is an official working for the
                                                                         defendant. Pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations,
Decision         contested     refusal of registration by the            EUR 68,48, corresponding to family allowances paid by the
before the Board of            examiner                                  Belgian ‘allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés’ scheme
Appeal:                                                                  to his late wife in respect of their dependant child, was being
                                                                         deducted from his monthly Community salary.
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the application in
Appeal:                        respect of goods in Classes 9 and
                               10 and leave for publication of           The present case is based on a change, in accordance with the
                               the application in respect of goods       Belgian Law of 12 August 2000, in the practice of the Belgian
                               in Class 11                               authorities consisting in no longer deducting the Communities
                                                                         orphan’s pension.
Grounds of claim:              no absolute bars to registration
                               under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).             In his complaint, the applicant raised the difficulty of consist-
                                                                         ency between the Communities and Belgian orphan’s pensions,
                                                                         pointing out that the EUR 68,48 being withheld was not
                                                                         attributable to family allowances since his late wife was no
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the         longer in receipt of them. The defendant was wrong to
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          consider the sums paid by the Belgian authorities by way of
                                                                         orphan’s allowances and those paid by the Communities’
                                                                         administration to be of like nature within the meaning of
                                                                         Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. Accordingly, the
                                                                         deduction in question is per se an error.
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          They claim that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and
                                                                          in law in finding that, with respect to anti-doping rules, the
—     the retroactive application of the contested decision               IOC is not an undertaking for the purposes of Community
      infringes the principles underlying recovery of sums                law. It is clear that the IOC cannot be treated in the same way
      overpaid and, in particular, Article 85 of the Staff                as a public institution providing social security services and
      Regulations as well as the principles of legitimate expec-          that it does not exercise the prerogatives of a public authority.
      tations and sound administration;                                   Moreover, the rules in question affect the conduct of all
                                                                          athletes on the market for the sports which the applicants
                                                                          perform.
—     for the purpose of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations, the
      orphan’s pension is not of like nature to the dependent
      child allowance. Therefore, the payments made by the
      administration until February 2002 were not manifestly              In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission commit-
      irregular; rather, it is the deductions under the contested         ted a manifest error of assessment in finding that, in the
      decision which are in point of fact irregular.                      present case, the limitation on the freedom of athletes is not a
                                                                          restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81
                                                                          EC, on the ground that such a limitation is inherent in the
                                                                          organisation and smooth running of competitive sport. The
                                                                          Commission’s findings constitute a manifest misapplication of
                                                                          the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in paragraph 97
                                                                          of the judgment in Wouters ( 1) and the restrictive effects of the
                                                                          IOC rules in question are clearly not inherent in the pursuit of
                                                                          the praiseworthy aims of the campaign against doping.
Action brought on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
                                                                          According to the applicants, it is for the Commission — in
Medina and Igor Majcen against the Commission of the                      accordance with the ‘necessity test’ and/or the ‘proportionality
                    European Communities
                                                                          test’ — to declare that a rule which has been proven to have
                                                                          no scientific basis can in no way satisfy the requirements of
                          (Case T-313/02)                                 such tests.
                         (2002/C 305/62)
                                                                          Finally, the Commission’s assessment is manifestly incorrect in
                                                                          so far as it fails to recognise Article 49 EC as having any direct
                   (Language of the case: French)                         horizontal effect. It must be found that, since they do not
                                                                          satisfy a ‘test of necessity’, the contested IOC rules also infringe
                                                                          Article 49 EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (1 ) Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577.
European Communities on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
Medina, residing in Barcelona (Spain), and Igor Majcen, residing
in Ljubljana (Slovenia), represented by J.-L. Dupont, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision notified to the appli-
      cants on 5 August 2002 rejecting the complaint of                   Action brought on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude
      31 May 2001 against the International Olympic Com-                  Girardot against the Commission of the European Com-
      mittee;                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-316/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 305/63)
By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the
complaint lodged by the applicants, who are professional                                       (Language of the case: French)
swimmers, that certain practices and rules of the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) concerning the fight against doping
were contrary to European competition law. The applicants
objected, in particular, to the fact that, in connection with the
detection of the substance nandrolone, the IOC continues to               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
apply a maximum level which has now been found to lack                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
scientific merit.                                                         European Communities on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude


title: Case C-529/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 October 2016 — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 October 2016 — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München
   (Case C-529/16)
   (2017/C 030/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Article 28 et seq. of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, (2) permit an agreed transfer price, which is composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, using an allocation key, regardless of whether a subsequent debit charge or credit is made to the declarant at the end of the accounting period?

               2.

               If so:
               May the customs value be reviewed and/or determined using simplified approaches where the effects of subsequent transfer pricing adjustments (both upward and downward) can be recognised?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2001 in Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/98: E v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Temporary agent — Disciplinary action — Suspension — Disciplinary measure — Termination without notice of the contract — Period prescribed by the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Disregarded — Consequences — Action for annulment and damages — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 259/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            15.9.2001
5.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                    —     the remainder of the application is dismissed;
6.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                    —     the parties shall bear their own costs, including those
      Ireland, the French Republic and the Federal Republic of                         relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
      Germany to bear their own costs.
                                                                           3.    In Case T-241/99:
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.97, C 378 of 20.12.97, C 94 of 28.3.98 and
    C 246 of 28.8.99.                                                            —     the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant
                                                                                EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for non-material
                                                                                damage;
                                                                                —     the remainder of the application is dismissed;
                                                                                —     the Commission shall, in addition to bearing its own
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                            costs, pay one-quarter of the applicant’s costs.
                            of 3 July 2001
                                                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.98 and C 6 of 8.1.98.
in Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99: E v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Temporary agent — Disciplinary action —
Suspension — Disciplinary measure — Termination without
notice of the contract — Period prescribed by the third
paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— Disregarded — Consequences — Action for annulment
             and damages — No need to adjudicate)                                                     of 16 May 2001
                           (2001/C 259/06)                                 in Case T-68/99 Toditec NV v Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                                Counterclaim)
In Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/98: E, temporary member
of staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in T.I. (Italy), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmen-                                  (2001/C 259/07)
tier and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application, in                                    (Language of the case: English)
Case T-24/98, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 12 November 1997 to continue to keep the
applicant on suspension from duties and, secondly, seeking an              In Case T-68/99 Toditec NV, established in Antwerp (Belgium),
order requiring the Community to make good the damage                      represented by E. Ballon and H. Dubois, avocats, with an
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision           address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
and, in Case T-241/99, an application, first, for annulment of             European Communities (Agents: E. de March, M. Shotter and
the decision of the Commission of 22 December 1998                         J. Stuyck) — application pursuant to an arbitration clause
imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of termin-              within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now
ation without notice of the temporary-agent contract and,                  Article 238 EC) for the Commission to be required to pay the
secondly, seeking an order requiring the Community to make                 sum of ECU 74 967, plus interest at the rate of 7 % (the legal
good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result            rate applicable in Belgium) as from 5 June 1998, and
of that decision and of the disciplinary procedure — the Court             counterclaim by the Commission for the applicant to be
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,               required to pay it the sum of EUR 54 486, plus interest at the
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,          rate of 7 % as from 31 January 1999 — the Court of First
gave a judgment on 13 July 2001, the operative part of which               Instance, composed of (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); J. Palacio
is as follows:                                                             González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
                                                                           ment on 16 May 2001, in which it:
1.    Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99 are joined for the purposes of
      the judgment.                                                        1.    Allows the applicant’s claim in so far as it seeks reimbursement
                                                                                of expenditure on consumables amounting to EUR 4 642.
2.    In Case T-24/98:
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.
      —     there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for
            annulment;                                                     3.    Allows the Commission’s counterclaim.


title: Case T-164/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Reddig v OHIM — Morleys (Knife handle) (Community trade mark — Proceedings for invalidity — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Knife handle — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign constituted exclusively by the shape of the product necessary for obtaining a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/21

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Reddig v OHIM — Morleys (Knife handle)
      (Case T-164/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Proceedings for invalidity - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Knife handle - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign constituted exclusively by the shape of the product necessary for obtaining a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal)
      (2012/C 331/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Reddig GmbH (Drebber, Germany) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Morleys Ltd (Preston, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Stein and M. Terbach, lawyers, and E. Gunaratnam, Solicitor)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 1072/2009-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Morleys Ltd and Reddig GmbH.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Reddig GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case T-140/07: Action brought on 26 April 2007 — Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/28

         Action brought on 26 April 2007 — Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK v Commission
   (Case T-140/07)
   (2007/C 155/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe BV (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands), Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK Ltd (Havant, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Vallery, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants respectfully ask the Court to

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C (2007)546 of 15 February 2007 on the basis of which the Commission, has compelled the applicants, pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1), to provide specific information and documents related to practices under investigation in Case COMP/F/39309 — Thin Films Transistors Liquid Crystal Displays.
   The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful in that the Commission lacks the investigative and enforcement power to compel EU subsidiaries to produce documents and to provide information under the sole custody and control of legal entities located outside the Commission's jurisdiction. It is, hence, submitted that the Commission erred in law by addressing a formal request for information to the applicants, thereby compelling them to provide documents and information under the sole control and possession of their parent company located outside the EU territory.
   Precisely, the applicants claim that the contested decision infringes Article 18(1) and (3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 because it disregards the document ownership and control doctrine and thus the inherent limitation of these provisions. In addition, the applicants contend that the contested decision violates the general principles of international law of territoriality, of sovereignty, of non-intervention and of equality of States by allegedly asserting enforcement jurisdiction over a company located outside the EU.

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 March 2000 in Case T-197/98, Charlotte Rudolph v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Time-limit for bringing a complaint — Service of decision — Languages — Annulment of a pre-recruitment medical examination on the ground of a false declaration)

text:
C 163/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5000 in
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage she suffered;
                                                                            4. Dismisses the rest of the action;
                         of 23 March 2000
                                                                            5. Orders the applicant to pay 10 % of her own costs;
                                                                            6. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs plus 90 % of those
                                                                                incurred by the applicant.
in Case T-197/98, Charlotte Rudolph v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
(Officials — Time-limit for bringing a complaint — Service
of decision — Languages — Annulment of a pre-recruitment
  medical examination on the ground of a false declaration)
                          (2000/C 163/50)                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 March 2000
                                                                            in Case T-337/94 (92): Enso-Gutzeit Oy v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
In Case T-197/98: Charlotte Rudolph, a former official of                                             (2000/C 163/51)
the Commission of the European Communities, resident in
Brussels, represented by O. Eben of the Brussels Bar, Cabinet
Tonnar, 29 Rue du Fossé, Esch-sur-AIzette, Luxembourg v                                         (Language of the case: English)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
sia and J. Currall) — Application for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 17 November 1997 declaring the                     In Case T-337/94 (92): Enso-Gutzeit Oy, established in Helsin-
applicant’s pre-recruitment medical examination null and void               ki, represented by I. Van Bael and J.-F. Bellis, of the Brussels
and requiring her to undergo a further physical examination,                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
and of the Commission’s decision of 7 December 1998                         Chambers of L. Lorang, 3 Rue de la Chapelle, against Com-
annulling the decisions of 3 July and 14 December 1995                      mission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) —
recruiting the applicant as an official, and for compensation               application for taxation of the costs to be paid by the defendant
for non-material damage allegedly suffered by her — the Court               to the applicant following the judgment of the Court of First
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,                   Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-337/94 Enso-Gutzeit v
President and R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                    Commission [1998] ECR II-1571 — the Court of First
J. Palacio Gonzàlez, Administrator on behalf of the Registrar,              Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
has given a judgment on 23 March 2000, in which it:                         of: B. Vesterdorf, President, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras
                                                                            and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order
                                                                            on 15 March 2000, in which it orders:
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 17 November 1997
     declaring the applicant’s pre-recruitment medical examination          The total amount of costs to be paid by the Commission to the
     null and void and requiring her to undergo a further physical          applicant is fixed at BEF 4 500 000.
     examination;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 392 of 31.12.1994.
2. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant an amount equal to
     arrears in salary plus interest at the rate of 5.5 % per annum
     from the date on which the applicant’s salary ceased to be paid;


title: Case C-80/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Novara lodged on  5 January 2006  — CARP SNC, Di Moleri Luigi and Corsi Valter v ECORAD SRL.

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Novara lodged on 5 January 2006 — CARP SNC, Di Moleri Luigi and Corsi Valter v ECORAD SRL.
   (Case C-80/06)
   (2006/C 131/50)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Ordinario di Novara
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi, Associazione Nazionale Artigiani Legno e Arredamenti.
   Defendant(s): Ecorad Srl
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Are Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for doors intended to be fitted with panic bars to be manufactured by operators (door fitters) who do not comply with the requirements of the system of attestation of conformity No 1?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is yes: regardless of whether technical standards have been adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), are the requirements under Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC legally binding from the date when that decision entered into force in so far as regards the type of attestation of conformity procedure to be complied with by manufacturers (door fitters) of doors intended to be fitted with panic bars?

               3.

               Are Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision 1999/93/EC to be regarded as being invalid on the basis that they are contrary to the principle of proportionality in so far as they require all producers to comply with the attestation of conformity procedure No 1 in order to be able to mark doors fitted with panic bars they have themselves manufactured with the EC conformity mark (the mandate to adopt the relevant technical standards being given to the CEN)?

      (1)  Commission Decision 1999/93/EC of 25 January 1999 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building hardware (OJ 1999 L 29, p. 51).