title: Case C-408/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 12 October 2001 in the case of 1. ADIDAS A.G. and 2. ADIDAS BENELUX B.V. against FITNESS WORLD TRADING Ltd

text:
5.1.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht                  3.   Is Article 6 of Directive 93/104/EC in itself unconditional
Lörrach by orders of 26 September 2001 in the cases of                         and sufficiently precise to be capable of being relied on
Bernhard Pfeiffer, Wilhelm Roith, Albert Süss, Michael                         by individuals before national courts where the State has
Winter, Klaus Nestvogel, Roswitha Zeller and Matthias                          not properly transposed the directive into national law?
Döbele v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut
                               e.V.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 307, p. 18.
                 (Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01)                             (2) OJ L 183, p. 1.
                          (2002/C 3/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of 26 September 2001 of
the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach (Labour Court) Lörrach, which were
received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2001 in the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
cases of Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith                      Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 12 October
(C-398/01), Albert Süss (C-399/01), Michael Winter                        2001 in the case of 1. ADIDAS A.G. and 2. ADIDAS
(C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller                    BENELUX B.V. against FITNESS WORLD TRADING Ltd
(C-402/01) and Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches
Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut e.V (German Red Cross,
Waldshut District Association) for a preliminary ruling on the                                    (Case C-408/01)
following questions:
                                                                                (2002/C 3/22)
1(a) Is the reference in Article 1(3) of Council Directive
     93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993 concerning certain
     aspects of the organisation of working time to Article 2(2)
     of Council Directive 89/391/EEC (2) of 12 June 1989 on
     the introduction of measures to encourage improvements
     in the safety and health of workers at work, under which             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the directives are not applicable where characteristics              European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
     peculiar to certain specific activities in the civil protection      Nederlanden of 12 October 2001, which was received at the
     services inevitably conflict with their application, to be           Court Registry on 15 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling
     construed as meaning that the plaintiff’s activity as a              in the case of 1. ADIDAS A.G. and 2. ADIDAS BENELUX B.V.
     rescue worker is caught by this exclusion?                           against FITNESS WORLD TRADING Ltd on the following
                                                                          questions:
1(b) Is the concept of road transport in Article 1(3) of
     Directive 93/104/EC to be construed as meaning that                  1.   (a)   Must Article 5(2) of the Directive be interpreted as
     only those driving activities in which by their nature great                    meaning that, under a national law implementing
     distances are covered and, consequently, working times                          that provision, the proprietor of a trade mark which
     cannot be fixed owing to the unforeseeability of any                            is well known in the Member State concerned may
     difficulties are excluded from the scope of the directive,                      also oppose the use of the trade mark or a sign
     or is road transport within the meaning of this provision                       similar to it, in the manner and circumstances
     also to be taken to mean the activity of land-based rescue                      referred to therein, in relation to goods or services
     services, which comprises at least in part the driving of                       which are identical with or similar to those for
     rescue vehicles and attendance on patients during the                           which the trade mark is registered?
     journey?
                                                                               (b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative:
2.   In view of the judgment in Case C-303/98 Simap [2000]                           where Article 5(2) of the Directive is implemented
     ECR I-0000, paragraphs 73 and 74, is Article 18(1)(b)(i)                        in a national law, must the concept of ‘likelihood of
     of Directive 93/104/EC to be construed as meaning that                          confusion’ referred to in Article 5(1)(b) of the
     consent given individually by a worker must expressly                           Directive be interpreted as meaning that there
     refer to the extension of working time to more than                             exists such a likelihood if a person other than the
     48 hours per week, or may such consent also reside in                           proprietor of the trade mark uses a well-known
     the worker’s agreeing with the employer, in the contract                        trade mark or a sign similar to it, in the manner and
     of employment, that working conditions are to be                                circumstances referred to in Article 5(2) of the
     governed by a collective agreement which itself allows                          Directive, in relation to goods or services which are
     working time to be extended to more than 48 hours on                            identical with or similar to those for which the trade
     average?                                                                        mark is registered?
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
2.   If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:             3.    Is the material outlay (in particular in regard to costs) in
                                                                             which clients who have hitherto been supplied with the
                                                                             product of the undertaking having a dominant market
     (a)   Must the question concerning the similarity between               position would be involved if they were in future to go
           the trade mark and the sign in such a case be                     over to purchasing the product of a competing undertak-
           assessed on the basis of a criterion other than that              ing which does not make use of the data bank protected
           of (direct or indirect) confusion as to origin, and if            by copyright relevant to the question of abusive conduct
           so, according to what criterion?                                  by an undertaking with a dominant position on the
                                                                             market?
     (b) If the sign alleged to be an infringement in such a
           case is viewed purely as an embellishment by the
           relevant section of the public, what importance must
           be attached to that circumstance in connection with
           the question concerning the similarity between the
           trade mark and the sign?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                       beamt (Austria) by order of 25 September 2001 in the
                                                                       case of Traunfellner GmbH v Österreichische Autobah-
                                                                          nen- und Schnellstrassen-Finanzierungs-AG (ÖSAG)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 12 July 2001                                       (Case C-421/01)
in the case of IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC
                      Health GmbH & Co
                                                                                (2002/C 3/24)
                        (Case C-418/01)
                          (2002/C 3/23)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 25 September 2001 by
                                                                       the Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 24 October 2001,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Traunfellner GmbH v
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Frankfurt             Österreichische Autobahnen- und Schnellstrassen-Finan-
am Main (Regional Court) of 12 July 2001, which was received           zierungs-AG (ÖSAG) on the following questions:
at the Court Registry on 22 October 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC
Health GmbH & Co on the following questions:                           Question 1
                                                                       Is an alternative tender that consists in proposing an asphalt
1.   Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that there is       surface instead of overlaying the carriageway with concrete as
     abusive conduct by an undertaking with a dominant                 specified in the tender document a ‘variant’ within the meaning
     position on the market where it refuses to grant a licence        of the first paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1)?
     agreement for the use of a data bank protected by
     copyright to an undertaking which seeks access to the
     same geographical and actual market if the participants           Question 2
     on the other side of the market, that is to say potential
     clients, reject any product which does not make use of
     the data bank protected by copyright because their set-up         Can a criterion established in national legislation to determine
     relies on products manufactured on the basis of that data         the admissibility of the acceptance of a ‘variant’ within the
     bank?                                                             meaning of the first paragraph of Article 19 of Directive
                                                                       93/37/EEC, whereby ‘the performance of qualitatively equiva-
                                                                       lent work is ensured’ by the variant, properly be regarded as a
2.   Is the extent to which an undertaking with a dominant             ‘minimum specification’ required and stated by the contracting
     position on the market has involved persons from the              authority in accordance with the first and second paragraphs
     other side of the market in the development of the data           of Article 19 of Directive 93/37/EEC, if the tender document
     bank protected by copyright relevant to the question of           refers only to the national provision and does not specify the
     abusive conduct by that undertaking?                              comparative parameters to be used to assess ‘equivalence’?


title: Case C-411/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 18 August 2010 — NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 18 August 2010 — NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-411/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/34
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NS

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Interested parties: 1) Amnesty International Limited and the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), 2) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 3) Equality and Human Rights Commission

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a decision made by a Member State under Article 3(2) of Council Regulation 343/2003 (1) (‘the Regulation’) whether to examine a claim for asylum which is not its responsibility under the criteria set out in Chapter III of the Regulation fall within the scope of EU law for the purposes of Article 6 of the Treaty of European Union and/or Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)?

         If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes’:

               2.

               Is the duty of a Member State to observe EU fundamental rights (including the rights set out in Articles 1,4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter) discharged where that State sends the asylum seeker to the Member State which Article 3(1) designates as the responsible State in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of the Regulation (‘the Responsible State’), regardless of the situation in the Responsible State?

               3.

               In particular, does the obligation to observe EU fundamental rights preclude the operation of a conclusive presumption that the Responsible State will observe (i) the claimant's fundamental rights under EU law; and/or (ii) the minimum standards imposed by Directives 2003/9/EC (2) (‘the Reception Directive’); 2004/83/EC (3) (‘the Qualification Directive’) and/or 2005/85/EC (4) (‘the Procedures Directive’) (together referred to as ‘the Directives’)?

               4.

               Alternatively, is a Member State obliged by EU law, and if so, in what circumstances, to exercise the power under Article 3(2) of the Regulation to examine and take responsibility for a claim, where transfer to the Responsible State would expose the claimant to a risk of violation of his fundamental rights, in particular the rights set out in Articles 1,4, 18, 19(2), and/or 47 of the Charter, and/or to a risk that the minimum standards set out in the Directives will not be applied to him?

               5.

               Is the scope of the protection conferred upon a person to whom the Regulation applies by the general principles of EU law, and, in particular, the rights set out in Articles 1,18, and 47 of the Charter wider than the protection conferred by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’)?

               6.

               Is it compatible with the rights set out in Article 47 of the Charter for a provision of national law to require a Court, for the purpose of determining whether a person may lawfully be removed to another Member State pursuant to the Regulation, to treat that Member State as a State from which the person will not be sent to another State in contravention of his rights pursuant to the Convention or his rights pursuant to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees?

               7.

               Insofar as the preceding questions arise in respect of the obligations of the United Kingdom, are the answers to Questions 2-4 qualified in any respect so as to take account of the Protocol (No. 30) on the application of the Charter to Poland and to the United Kingdom?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national
   OJ L 50, p. 1

      (2)  Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers
   OJ L 31, p. 18

      (3)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted
   OJ L 304, p. 12

      (4)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status
   OJ L 326, p. 13


title: Case T-194/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  11 May 2006  — TeleTech Holdings v OHIM — Teletech International (TELETECH INTERNATIONAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Extent of the examination required — Conversion of a Community trade mark application to a national trade mark application — Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2006 — TeleTech Holdings v OHIM — Teletech International (TELETECH INTERNATIONAL)
   (Case T-194/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Extent of the examination required - Conversion of a Community trade mark application to a national trade mark application - Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 178/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: TeleTech Holdings, Inc. (Denver, Colorado, United States) (represented by: A. Gould and M. Blair, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Teletech International SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-F. Adelle and F. Zimeray, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2005 (R 497/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between TeleTech Holdings, Inc. and Teletech International SA
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by the intervener.

               3.

               The intervener shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.


title: Case C-179/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by order of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case of Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a. against Comune di Torino, intervener: ED.ART. s.r.l.

text:
14.7.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 200/45
—      the suggestion that it was permissible for NALOO to               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
       supplement its 1990 complaint because it could not have           Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by order of that court
       challenged the May 1991 Decision is incorrect and, even           of 13 February 2001 in the case of Impresa Binda &
       if it was permissible for NALOO to act in that way, it was        C. s.p.a. against Comune di Torino, intervener: ED.ART.
       not permissible for NALOO to wait three years before                                               s.r.l.
       submitting the Supplemental Complaint;
—      the Court of First Instance’s conclusion that the 1998                                      (Case C-179/01)
       Decision did not merely confirm a decision that had
       already been made is misconceived and wrong so far as
       the Article 63 (1) aspect of the Supplemental Complaint                                    (2001/C 200/81)
       is concerned;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—      the fact that the pre-1 April 1990 situation had been             European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
       regarded as closed by the Commission and NALOO on                 (Council of State), sitting in its judicial capacity, of 13 February
       the basis of a mistake as to the juridiction of domestic          2001, received at the Court Registry on 24 April 2001, for a
       courts is irrelevant;                                             preliminary ruling in the case of Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a.
                                                                         against Comune di Torino, intervener: ED.ART. s.r.l., on the
                                                                         following questions:
—      NALOO’s claim, and the Court of First Instance’s apparent
       acceptance of it, blatantly offend the principles of legal
       certainty and non-retrospectivity because its case is that        1.   In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
       conduct that was not, at the time of its commission, in                excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
       breach of any legal prohibition or right that the members              their tenders explanations concerning components of the
       of NALOO could at that time invoke before a national                   price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
       court, can at any time in the future (and after the conduct            specified in the tender conditions, represent an obstacle
       has ceased) produce for the benefit of the members of                  to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?
       NALOO a right to claim damages.
                                                                         2.   Does the establishment of a mechanism for automatically
                                                                              identifying tenders which overstep a threshold indicative
                                                                              of irregularities and whose validity should therefore be
The Commission’s obligation to investigate                                    checked, based on an ad hoc test and an arithmetical
NALOO’s complaint                                                             mean, which is such that undertakings are unable to
                                                                              ascertain that threshold in advance, represent an obstacle
                                                                              to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
Since NALOO’s Supplemental Complaint did not seek, and
was not directed at seeking, the adoption of a recommendation            3.   Does the fact that provision is made for a prior exchange
under Article 63(1), the Commission lay under no obligation                   of views, without the undertaking which has allegedly
to investigate it and the Court of First Instance erred in holding            submitted an irregular tender having an opportunity to
otherwise.                                                                    state its reasons, after the opening of the envelopes and
                                                                              before the adoption of the measure excluding it, represent
                                                                              an obstacle to the application of Article 30(4) of Direc-
The alleged failure of the Commission to                                      tive 93/37?
take into account the available evidence
                                                                         4.   Does a provision under which the contracting authority
                                                                              may take account of explanations relating solely to the
The reasons on which the Article 63(1) aspect of the 1998                     economy of the construction method or the technical
Decision was based were set out in that decision. Those                       solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-
reasons did not refer to the facts or the evidence because they               ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
were not relevant to the basis on which the Commission made                   the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
its decision. A decision cannot be annulled on the ground that
it fails to state the reasons on which it was not based and it           5.   Does the [exclusion of] explanations relating solely to
follows that the Court of First Instance erred in holding that                items for which minimum values can be inferred from
the 1998 Decision was vitiated by a failure to state reasons.                 official lists represent an obstacle to the application of
                                                                              Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98, p. 36.
(2) [1996] ECR II-705.                                                   (1) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).


title: Case T-691/16: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission (EDF — Support programme for development in Mauritania — Contract for services entered into with Mauritania in the context of the implementation of that programme — Withdrawal of contested debit notes — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/28

         Order of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission
   (Case T-691/16) (1)

   ((EDF - Support programme for development in Mauritania - Contract for services entered into with Mauritania in the context of the implementation of that programme - Withdrawal of contested debit notes - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 256/34)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Elevolution — Engenharia SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pinto Cardoso and L. Fuzeta da Ponte, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and M. França, Agents)

      Subject matter

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the ‘decisions’ allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter and the three debit notes of 26 July 2016 concerning the repayment of various amounts with regard to a contract for services between the applicant and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present case.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Elevolution — Engenharia SA.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-210/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v City of Orléans

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v City of Orléans
   (Case C-210/09)
   2009/C 205/36
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS

      Defendant: City of Orléans

      Question referred

   Is a possible annulment by the French administrative court of the assessments issued for the recovery of aid declared on 12 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities to be incompatible with the common market, (1) on the ground that those assessments infringe legislative provisions relating to the physical presentation of those assessments, given the ability of the competent administrative authority to remedy the vitiating defect in those decisions, such as to hinder the immediate and effective implementation of the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 July 2000, contrary to Article 14(3) of the Council Regulation of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty? (2)

      (1)  Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-94/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (French Court of Appeal) by judgment of that court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Roquette Frères SA v Directeur-Général de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes (Director-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and the Elimination of Fraud)

text:
C 149/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekon-                  the case of Roquette Frères SA v Directeur-Général de la
trollsenat (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 17 Februa-           Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des
ry 2000 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure Kranken-                 Fraudes on the following questions:
haustechnik PlanungsgesmbH against Magistrat der Stadt
         Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund                         (1) Having regard to the fundamental rights recognised by the
                                                                           Community legal order and to Article 8 of the European
                          (Case C-92/00)                                   Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, must
                                                                           the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities in Hoechst of 21 September 1989 be inter-
                         (2000/C 149/42)                                   preted to mean that the national court, which has the
                                                                           power in national law to order entry into premises and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     seizures by agents of the Administration in the area of
European Communities by order of the Vergabekontrollsenat                  competition, cannot refuse to grant the authorisation
(Public-Procurement Review Chamber) of 17 February 2000,                   requested when it considers that the information or
received at the Court Registry on 10 March 2000, for a                     evidence put before it and alleged to give rise to a
preliminary ruling in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure                   suspicion of anti-competitive practices on the part of the
Krankenhaustechnik PlanungsgesmbH v Magistrat der Stadt                    undertakings mentioned in the Commission’s decision to
Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund (Public Authority                    investigate are not sufficient to warrant such a measure or
of the City of Vienna — Vienna Associated Hospitals) on the                when, as in the present case, no information or evidence
following questions:                                                       has been put before it?
1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) (directive         (2) In the event that the Court of Justice refuses to recognise
    on remedies) require the decision of a contracting authority           that the Commission is required to put before the national
    to cancel the procedure for the award of a contract for                court the evidence or information it has which gives rise
    services to be reviewable in review proceedings leading, if            to a suspicion of anti-competitive practices, having regard
    appropriate, to its being set aside?                                   to the above fundamental rights, is that court none the less
                                                                           empowered to refuse the application for entry to premises
2. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, is there any                   and seizure of evidence if it considers that the Commission
    provision of Directive 89/665 or of Directive 92/50/EEC (2)            decision does not state sufficient reasons, as in the present
    which precludes a review limited to examination of the                 case, and does not allow it to ascertain in practice whether
    issue whether cancellation of the award procedure was                  the application before it is well-founded, thereby making
    arbitrary or a sham?                                                   it impossible for it to carry out the review required by its
                                                                           national constitutional law?
3. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, which is the
    relevant moment in time for assessing whether the decision
    of the contracting authority to cancel the award procedure
    is lawful?
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
(2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
                                                                       Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 21 January 2000 in the
                                                                                case of O’Neill Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.
                                                                                (Case C-95/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                                            (2000/C 149/44)
Cassation (French Court of Appeal) by judgment of that
court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Roquette Frères SA
v Directeur-Général de la Concurrence, de la Consomma-                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
tion et de la Répression des Fraudes (Director-General for             European Communities by order of 21 January 2000 from
Competition, Consumer Affairs and the Elimination of                   the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)
                              Fraud)                                   (Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of O’Neill
                                                                       Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o. on the following question:
                          (Case C-94/00)
                                                                       On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                         (2000/C 149/43)                               Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
                                                                       down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas-                 counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
sation of 7 March 2000, which was received at the Court                Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994), as amended by
Registry on 13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                 Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (1) of 25 January 1999,


title: Case T-267/16: Order of the General Court of 10 February 2017 — Tarmac Trading v Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/50

         Order of the General Court of 10 February 2017 — Tarmac Trading v Commission
   (Case T-267/16) (1)

   (2017/C 112/68)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case T-588/08: Action brought on 24 December 2008 — Dole Food and Dole Germany v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/67

         Action brought on 24 December 2008 — Dole Food and Dole Germany v Commission
   (Case T-588/08)
   (2009/C 44/114)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Dole Food Company, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) and Dole Germany OHG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application, the applicants seek annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of the Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC which held them liable for participating in a concerted practice of coordination of quotation prices for bananas imported to the eight Member States of the Northern European region of the Community. They also seek the annulment or the reduction of the fine imposed on them.
   In support of their claims, the applicants put forward two pleas.
   First, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in determining that the conduct at issue was a restriction of competition by object under Article 81 EC. The applicants contend that in fact, the conduct at issue consisted exclusively in occasional bilateral communications between banana importers involving general market gossip and did not form part of a broader price-fixing or market-sharing cartel and was thus not a restriction of competition by object. These communications took place prior to the setting of quotation prices that is at a stage far removed from the negotiation of actual prices with customers. Further the applicants state that these communications were not, and could not be, to restrict competition in the banana market since quotation prices are not actual prices and do not form the basis for the negotiation of actual prices of green bananas.
   Second, the applicants claim that the fine imposed on them was unjustified because the basic amount of the fine is based on the value of sales of goods to which the alleged infringement does not relate. Further, the applicants argue that the fine was also disproportionate because the basic amount of the fine was wrongly set on the premise that the conduct concerned price-fixing.


title: Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Azienda Agricola 'Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara against Council of the European Union (Case T-152/98)

text:
21.11.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 358/21
Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Council                    Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Azienda
of European Municipalities and Regions against the                    Agricola Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara
         Commission of the European Communities                                  against Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-151/98)                                                       (Case T-152/98)
                        (98/C 358/38)                                                         (98/C 358/39)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 22 September 1998 by the Council of                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
European       Municipalities     and     Regions     (CEMR),         brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
established in Paris, represented by Daniel M. Tomasevic,             1998 by Azienda Agricola Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   Vincenzo e Clara, represented by Massimo Moretto,
Luxembourg at the chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58                   Roberto Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice,
rue Charles Martel.                                                   Padua and Bari Bars respectively, with an address for
                                                                      service in Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue
                                                                      des Nerviens.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
should:
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European                should:
     Communities contained in debit note 97009405F
     concerning ECOS Project No 91/00/29003, issued on
     15 July 1998, by which the Commission refuses to pay
     to the CEMR a balance of ECU 204 446 and claims                  Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
     from the CEMR a balance of ECU 300 173;                              Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
                                                                          fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
                                                                          intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                              price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
                                                                          beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
                                                                          costs (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
The applicant, which is already contesting before the                     1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
Court of First Instance an initial debit note concerning the              standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
European City Cooperation System (ECOS) project, in
which the Commission refused to approve certain
expenses and effected a reduction of the Community co-                Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
financing granted in the context of the RECITE                            Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
programme (1), is seeking in the present case annulment of                of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
a fresh debit note, dated 15 July 1998, which purports to                 applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
cancel and replace the previous note. In that second note,                an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
the Commission is still refusing to pay to the applicant a
balance of ECU 204 446 and is claiming from the
applicant, not the sum of ECU 363 336 originally
demanded, but the sum of ECU 300 173.                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant states that, even though it does not consider
that its claim in Case T-46/98 has become devoid of                   The applicant in this case, an agricultural undertaking
purpose, it has had to bring the present action as a                  producing beet, contests Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 to
precautionary measure, in consequence of the position                 the extent to which, by treating Italy as a non-deficit area,
adopted by the Commission in the first case.                          within the meaning of the basic regulation applicable to
                                                                      the sugar sector, it fails to set a derived intervention price
                                                                      for white sugar for all areas of Italy. It adds that since the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                   establishment of the common organisation of the market
those advanced in Case T-46/98.                                       in sugar, Italy has always been regarded as a deficit area.
(1) Case T-46/98, OJ C 151, 16.5.1998, p. 11.
                                                                      In support of its claim, the applicant states, first, that
                                                                      Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 is unlawful in that it
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
excludes Italy from the list of Community areas classified           Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Associazione
as being in deficit within the meaning of Regulation (EEC)           Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio Nazionale Bieticoltori
No 1785/81, or the basic regulation for the sugar sector. It         and Associazione Bieticoltori Italiani against Council of
is claimed that in the light of the rationale and the                                     the European Union
objectives of regionalisation, it must be concluded that a                                  (Case T-153/98)
particular area of the Community is to be regarded as in
deficit' if its requirements have to be covered by sugar                                     (98/C 358/40)
imports. The economic data for Italian sugar imports and
exports for recent years, including those for the period                             (Language of the case: Italian)
prior to the adoption of the contested measures, show a
long-standing prevalence of imports over exports. It
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
follows that, by withholding regionalisation for the 1998/
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
99 marketing year for all the beet-growing areas of Italy,
the contested measures are contrary to the objectives                1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio
                                                                     Nazionale Bieticoltori and Associazione Bieticoltori
pursued by the basic regulation and are liable to
                                                                     Italiani, represented by Massimo Moretto, Roberto
compromise the proper functioning of the common
market organisation in question.                                     Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice, Padua and
                                                                     Bari Bars respectively, with an address for service in
                                                                     Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue des
                                                                     Nerviens.
The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of legal
certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations.          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
In its view, there is no doubt that the function of the limit        should:
date of 1 August, the date on which the intervention price
for white sugar must be fixed, as required by Article 3(4)           Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, is to allow interested                    Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
parties, and primarily beet growers, to ascertain the                     fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
minimum price that they will be guaranteed for the                        intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
marketing year for which they are sowing. The applicant                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
also observes that the contested measures, although issued                beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
only at the end of June 1998, have an impact on the 1998/                 costs (OJ 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
1999 marketing year for which sowing was undertaken in                    necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
February or March of the same year and even, for                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
southern areas, in November and December 1997. The                        1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
applicant's position is therefore that it knows the price for             standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
the sale of beet covered by supply contracts already
concluded and that that price no longer coincides with the
derived price at a time when it cannot change its                    Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
production plans. Moreover, the contested regulation is                   Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
also inimical to the related principle of the protection of               of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
legitimate expectations as far as beet growers are                        applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
concerned since they legitimately relied on the thirty-year               an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
basis of the minimum guaranteed price for beet produced
in Italy.                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The contentions and principal arguments adduced in
                                                                     support are the same as those put forward in Case T-152/
As regards breach of the principle of non-discrimination,            98 Ponte S. Pietro v. Council'.
also alleged by the applicant, it is contended that, since
the pattern of imports and exports of sugar in certain
countries treated as being in deficit by the contested
measures and in Italy have remained substantially the
same for the marketing years from 1990 to 1997, it is
hard to see why, against that background, Italy is
excluded from the list of deficit areas for the 1998/1999            Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Asia Motor
marketing year.                                                      France and Others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-154/98)
                                                                                (98/C 358/41)
The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to state
reasons.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case F-124/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Solberg v EMCDDA (Civil service — Former member of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Obligation to state reasons — Scope of discretion)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Solberg v EMCDDA
   (Case F-124/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Former member of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Obligation to state reasons - Scope of discretion)
   2013/C 352/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ulrik Solberg (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (represented by: D. Storti, Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to not renew the applicant’s contact as a member of the temporary staff

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Solberg’s action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Solberg to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.2013, p. 72.


title: Case T-664/14: Action brought on 15 September 2014  — Belgium v Commission

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/24

         Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-664/14)
   2014/C 380/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and by J. Meyers, avocat)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2(4) of European Commission Decision C(2014) 1021 of 3 July 2014 concerning the guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives in Case SA.33927;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and of the principle of proportionality, in that the contested decision would impose on Belgium, in addition to the obligation to recover the aid from the recipient cooperative undertakings, a prohibition on making any payment to natural persons protected by the guarantee.


title: Case C-194/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Benidorm (Spain) lodged on 26 April 2012 — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales CARREFOUR SA

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Benidorm (Spain) lodged on 26 April 2012 — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales CARREFOUR SA
   (Case C-194/12)
   2012/C 227/11
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Benidorm

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Concepción Maestre García

      Defendant: Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude an interpretation of the national legislation that does not allow interruption of a leave period, so that, at a later time, the entire period — or what remains of it — can be taken, where a temporary incapacity takes effect before the period in which leave is taken and there are reasons connected with production or organisation which preclude the leave from being taken in another later period?

               2.

               Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude an interpretation of the national legislation that permits an undertaking unilaterally to schedule a leave period which coincides with a period of temporary incapacity, where the worker has not expressed in advance a preference to take another period and where there is an agreement between the representatives of the undertaking’s workers and the undertaking which so permits?

               3.

               Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude an interpretation of the national legislation that permits payment in lieu of leave not taken as a result of temporary incapacity if there are reasons connected with production or organisation which preclude the leave from actually being taken, even though the employment contract has not been terminated?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of 11 April 1996 in the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and Amministrazione delle Finanze (Case C-155/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 180/25
3 . Can the recipient of a credit note, in the circumstances          Knubben Speditions GmbH v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal
     set out in Question 2, rely on Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the      Customs Office ) Mannheim on the following question :
     Sixth Directive if the value-added tax mentioned in the
     credit note is claimed from him as a tax debt to the             How is subheading 0904 20 of the Common Customs Tariff
     extent of the difference between the tax mentioned and           — combined nomenclature 1989 and 1990 — to be
     the tax owed by reason of taxable transactions ?                 interpreted ? Does the term 'sonst zerkleinert' used therein
                                                                      signify merely a fineness similar to the 'gemahlen' (crushed )
(!) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                       product, or does it also cover a product cut into pieces, such
                                                                      as a product cut into pieces measuring between 4 and
                                                                      8 mm ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in
the case of Hauptzollamt Miinchen v. Wacker Werke                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail
                        GmbH & Co . KG                                de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 25 April 1996 in
                                                                          the case of Office National des Pensions v. Cirotti
                         ( Case C-142/96 )
                                                                                Case C- 1 44/96 )
                           ( 96/C 180/55 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/57)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of            European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
7 March 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on             Travail de Bruxelles ( Higher Labour Court, Brussels ) of
29 April 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                25 April 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
Hauptzollamt Miinchen ( Principal Customs Office,                     3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office
Munich ) v . Wacker Werke GmbH & Co . KG on the                       National des Pensions ( National Pensions Office ) v. Cirotti
following questions:                                                  on the following question :
1 . Is the second alternative provided for in the second              Must     Articles     46     and   51     of   Regulation    ( EEC )
     subparagraph of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation           No 1408/71 (*) be interpreted as applying in the event of an
     ( EEC ) No 2473/86 of 24 July 1986 on outward                    invalidity benefit, calculated under the legislation of one
     processing relief arrangements ( OJ No L 212 , 1986 ,            Member State, overlapping with an old-age benefit,
     p . 1 ) to be interpreted as meaning that a method of            calculated under the legislation of another Member State,
     determining processing costs is reasonable only if the           that grants a person a share of the employed person's
     resulting value of the temporary export goods                    old-age benefit payable to his or her spouse from whom that
     corresponds approximately to the purchase price paid             person is living apart, even if this would give migrant
     by the holder of an outward processing authorization or          workers an advantage over non-migrant workers, when
     to the production costs ?                                        Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Regulation provides for equal treatment
                                                                      of all nationals of the Member States ?
2 . If the answer to the first question is in the negative, can
     reference be made to the purchase price for the inputs           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
     inclusive of uplifts paid by the processor to the holder of
     an outward processing authorization in determining the
     processing costs, and does that apply equally where
     there is a tariff anomaly resulting in a higher rate of duty
     for the unprocessed goods than for the compensating              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
     products ?                                                       Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       11 April 1996 in the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and
                                                                                Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-155/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/58 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Leonhard Knubben Speditions GmbH v.                       European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                    Hauptzollamt Mannheim                             Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa, First
                         ( Case C-143/96 )                            Civil Section ) of 11 April 1996 which was received at the
                                                                      Court Registry on 7 May 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
                            ( 96/C 180/56                             the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and Amministrazione delle
                                                                      Finanze on the same questions as in Joined Cases C-47/95
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                and Others ( 1 ).
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 7 March               (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Leonhard


title: Case C-572/12: Action brought on 6 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/15

         Action brought on 6 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-572/12)
   2013/C 38/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, E. Manhaeve, A. Tokár, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/81/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive;

               —

               in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay a daily penalty payment in the sum of EUR 57 324,80 from the date on which judgment is delivered in this case;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 21 August 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 216, p. 76.


title: Case C-204/06: Action brought on  4 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/28

         Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-204/06)
   (2006/C 143/53)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Walkerová and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, (1) or in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 April 2004.

      (1)  OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2002 in Case T-210/93: H. Hepp v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Producers subscribed to non-marketing or reconversion undertakings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
13.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/31
      (c)  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 16 April 2002
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                           in Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments
                                                                               N.V. v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from
                                                                                Turkey — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/55)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          of 9 April 2002
                                                                           In Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments N.V.
in Case T-210/93: H. Hepp v Council of the European                        (formerly Jubertrade N.V.), established in Antwerp (Belgium),
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                      represented by Y. van Gerven and I. Bernaerts, lawyers, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk                     the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and J. Stuyck)
— Producers subscribed to non-marketing or reconversion                    — application for the annulment of Commission Decision
            undertakings — No need to adjudicate)                          C(1999)4419 final (REC 4/99) of 14 December 1999 finding
                                                                           that it was appropriate, first, to make post clearance recovery
                                                                           and, secondly, to refuse to refund duties in respect of the
                          (2002/C 169/54)                                  importation of television sets from Turkey — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
                                                                           President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                   (Language of the case: German)                          made an order on 16 April 2002, the operative part of which
                                                                           is as follows:
                                                                           1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.
In Case T-210/93: H. Hepp, residing in Villmar-Weyer (Germ-
any), represented by H. Heep, lawyer, against Council of the               2.    The Commission shall pay all the costs.
European Union (Agents: A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß,
M. Niejahr, H.-J. Rabe and Núñez-Müller) — application for               (1) OJ 149 C 27.5.00.
compensation pursuant to Articles 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now, Article 235
EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss
suffered by the applicant as a result of having been prevented
from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
(OJ 1984 L 93, p. 13), supplemented by Commission Regu-                                             of 16 April 2002
lation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ 1984 L 132,
p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                      in Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum
Extended Composition), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos,                           B.V. v Commission of the European Communities (1)
President V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2002,
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 (Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from
                                                                                Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.                                           (2002/C 169/56)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.                                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ 270 C 19.10.92.                                                     In Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum B.V.,
                                                                           represented by R.G. Baron Snouckaert van Schauburg, lawyer,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot) — application


title: Case T-125/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Scientific and Technological Committee of AGH and Others v Commission (Proceedings for failure to act — Technologies for subterranean storage of carbon dioxide — Commission’s failure to adopt a position — Inadmissbility)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Scientific and Technological Committee of AGH and Others v Commission
   (Case T-125/07) (1)

   (Proceedings for failure to act - Technologies for subterranean storage of carbon dioxide - Commission’s failure to adopt a position - Inadmissbility)
   2009/C 129/23
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicants: Scientific and Technological Committee of AGH University of Science and Technology (Krakow, Poland); Europejskie Stowarzyszenie Ochrony Środowiska (Krakow); Przedsiębiorstwo Usług Geologiczno — Wiertniczych Chemkop-Geowiert sp. z o.o. (Krakow); Stowarzyszenie Obrony Środowiska (Krakow); Fundacja Partnerstwo dla Środowiska (Krakow); Niezależne Forum Ochrony Biosfery Ziemi (Skawina, Poland); Jan Adamczyk (Krakow); Emanuel Lipartowski (Krakow) (represented by: A. Żuraniewski, and subsequently by: M. Rogoziński and B. Balcerzak, lawyers),

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for failure to act, seeking a declaration that members of the Commission unlawfully failed to take appropriate measures, following the complaints made by the applicants, to eliminate the harmful effects on human health and the environment of techniques of capture and underground storage of carbon dioxide partly financed by the European Union

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Scientific and Technological Committee of AGH University of Science and Technology; Europejskie Stowarzyszenie Ochrony Środowiska; Przedsiębiorstwo Usług Geologiczno — Wiertniczych Chemkop-Geowiert sp. z o.o.; Stowarzyszenie Obrony Środowiska; Fundacja Partnerstwo dla Środowiska; Niezależne Forum Ochrony Biosfery Ziemi; Mr Jan Adamczyk and Mr Emanuel Lipartowski are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T -341/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  6 February 2006  — Datac v OHIM

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2006 — Datac v OHIM
   (Case T -341/04) (1)

   (2006/C 74/60)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-624/10: Action brought on 21 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/16

         Action brought on 21 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-624/10)
   2011/C 72/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by providing in Title IV of Administrative Instruction No 105 of 23 June 2006 (3 A-9-06) for an administrative concession derogating from a VAT reverse charge scheme and necessitating, among other things, the designation of a tax representative by a seller or provider established outside of France, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive and, in particular, Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214 thereof;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Commission claims that the French legislation derogating from a VAT reverse charge scheme is, in a number of respects, contrary to the law of the European Union.
   Firstly, the taxable persons who wish to benefit from the scheme introduced by Title IV of Administrative Instruction 3 A-9-06 are obliged to designate a tax representative, which is not in accordance with Article 204 of the VAT Directive. That article allows Member States to impose such an obligation only in the case where no instrument exists, with the country in which the taxable person is established, organising mutual assistance in indirect taxation matters similar to that provided for within the European Union.
   Secondly, the administrative concession is also subject to the obligation for the seller to identify him or herself for VAT purposes in France, which is not in accordance with Article 214(1) of the VAT Directive. Under that provision the duty to identify oneself for VAT purposes does not apply to those taxable persons who carry out, in the territory of a Member State in which they are not established, supplies of goods or services subject to reverse charge by the customer, in particular in application of Article 194 of the VAT Directive.
   Thirdly and finally, the scheme provides for the offsetting of the deductible VAT of the seller or provider against the VAT collected by one or more of his or her customers. That is not in accordance with the provisions of Articles 168 and 171 of the VAT Directive, which provide that the set-off between deductible VAT and collected VAT is to apply on an individual level to each taxable person. Such a derogating scheme also cannot be based upon Article 11 of that directive.


title: Case T-13/12: Action brought on 9 January 2012 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/25

         Action brought on 9 January 2012 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz v Commission
   (Case T-13/12)
   2012/C 89/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (Andechs, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, in so far as it authorises steviol glycosides extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant for use only as food additives and not as plant-based food ingredients of agricultural origin or as natural flavouring preparations;

               —

               In essence, declare that the European Union is obliged to compensate the applicant for the damage arising from the fact that Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council authorises steviol glycosides extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant for use only as food additives and not as plant-based food ingredients of agricultural origin or as natural flavouring preparations, and other undertakings therefore use steviol glycosides in the production of their conventional milk-based products, thereby forcing the applicant out of the market, while the applicant, as an organic dairy and producer of organic products, is prevented by the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Regulation No 889/2008 from using steviol glycosides as food additives, even where these are obtained by extraction from organically cultivated stevia leaves using the procedure approved under European Union law in respect of organic products.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, (1) in so far as it authorises steviol glycosides extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant for use only as food additives and not as plant-based food ingredients of agricultural origin or as natural flavouring preparations.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the non ultra vires rule

                           —

                           The applicant submits, first, that the Commission has — wrongly — treated steviol glycosides extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant as a food additive, and thus exceeded the powers conferred on it in adopting the regulation at issue. Steviol glycosides are a sophisticated choice owing to their taste. Accordingly they are not used as food additives for a technological purpose in accordance with Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, (2) but exclusively for the purpose of imparting flavour and/or taste within the meaning of recital 5 in the preamble to that regulation. Steviol glycosides should therefore be categorised as plant-based food ingredients or natural flavouring preparations. Consequently the Commission acted ultra vires.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to equal treatment

                           —

                           Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of its fundamental right to equal treatment in the sense that arbitrary decisions are prohibited; as an organic dairy, it is prevented from producing and marketing organic yoghurt with organic steviol glycosides, whereas its competitors, who produce yoghurts in conventional agriculture, are permitted to use steviol glycosides. The use of organic steviol glycosides as a food additive is prohibited under Article 19(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, (3) according to which only food additives which have been authorised for organic products may be used in production. No such authorisation was forthcoming either in Article 27(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (4) or as a result of inclusion in the positive list in Section A of Annex VIII to that regulation. By approving steviol glycosides as food additives only, the Commission therefore unlawfully interfered in the market to the benefit of producers of conventional products, thereby impeding competition.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to the protection of property and of the freedom to exercise an economic activity

                           —

                           Thirdly, the applicant alleges infringement of its fundamental right to the protection of property and of its freedom to exercise an economic activity.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons

                           —

                           The reasons given for Regulation No 1131/2011 are, moreover, insufficient, as no explanation is given in the recitals in the preamble as to why steviol glycosides, which serve only to impart flavour, to sweeten and to add a slightly tart taste, are treated as food additives.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides (OJ 2011 L 295, p. 205).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (OJ 2008 L 354, p. 16).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).


Avis juridique important

|

32000Y0122(01)

Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of Justice

Official Journal C 020 , 22/01/2000 P. 0001 - 0001

Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of Justice(2000/C 20/01)Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 24 November 1999(1), Mr Antonio Mario La Pergola took up his duties on 15 December 1999.(1) OJ L 307 of 2.12.1999, p. 57.


               18.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/8

         Action brought on 9 July 2012 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-7/12)
   2012/C 314/08
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 July 2012 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell, advocate, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicants request the EFTA Court to:
   in relation to the application against the failure to act:

               1.

               declare that the defendant has infringed Article 37(1) of the SCA by failing to act on its duty, under the Rules on Access to Documents, the Surveillance and Court Agreement and the EEA Agreement, to define its position on the request that the applicants submitted on 3 August 2010 for access to the complete file in ESA Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak); and

               2.

               order the defendant to bear the costs;

         in relation to the application for damages, to give an interlocutory ruling on the liability of the defendant and defer to a subsequent stage of the proceedings the question of assessing the damages attributable to the defendant:

               1.

               find that the inaction of the defendant between 7 September 2010 or any later date, and until the defendant has lawfully defined its position on the applicants’ request for access to the complete file in ESA Case No 34250 (Norway Post), on 3 August 2010, is such as to render the defendant liable, including for default interest, under Article 46(2) of the SCA;

               2.

               within six months after the defendant has lawfully defined its position on the applicants’ request for access to the complete file in ESA Case No 34250 (Norway Post), on 3 August 2010, the applicants shall inform the Court of the amount of damages that they claim and whether the parties agree on that amount;

               3.

               in the event of a failure to agree on the amount of damages, the parties shall submit to the Court, within the same period, their calculations of the amount of damages attributable to the defendant’s failure to lawfully define its position on the applicants’ request for access to the complete file in ESA Case No 34250 (Norway Post), on 3 August 2010;

               4.

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

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

               —

               The applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS are part of DB Schenker, an international freight forwarding and logistic group, owned by Deutsche Bahn AG. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB (collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’).

               —

               On 14 July 2010, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted a decision in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak), finding that Norway Post had abused its dominant position in the Norwegian business-to-consumer parcel delivery market in 2000-2006. The decision was upheld by the EFTA Court in Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority. The applicants are pursuing their rights for compensation from Norway Post for the damage caused by the infringement and want to review how the defendant handled the investigation and administrative procedure. On 3 August 2010, the applicants submitted a request for access to documents belonging to ESA Case No 34250, under the Rules of Access to Documents (RAD), established by a Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008.

               —

               On 8 March 2012, the applicants served a pre-litigation notice on the defendant under Article 37(2) of the SCA, on the basis that the defendant had failed to take a final decision on their access request, submitted on 3 August 2010. The applicants submit that the defendant subsequently failed to take a decision on their access request after statutory pre-litigation period expired, thereby also causing losses.

         The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

               —

               infringed Article 37 of the SCA, by failing to meet its legal obligations to decide on the access request that the applicants submitted on 3 August 2010, and

               —

               infringed Article 46(2) of the SCA, by failing to meet its legal obligation to take a timely decision on the access request that the applicants submitted on 3 August 2010 and handle the request in an otherwise lawful manner.


title: Case T-681/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Environmental Manufacturing v EUIPO — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Earlier international figurative mark Outils WOLF — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Environmental Manufacturing v EUIPO — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)
   (Case T-681/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier international figurative mark Outils WOLF - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 195/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 1252/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Environmental Manufacturing LLP to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.