title: Case C-173/01: Action brought on 20 April 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
28.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/9
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by the Kingdom of the                         used on agricultural land. As regards crops grown in
Netherlands against the Commission of the European                            glasshouses, which do come into direct contact with the
                          Communities                                         ground, a very considerable proportion of the phosphate
                                                                              and nitrogen is absorbed through the plants; conse-
                                                                              quently, it cannot be said that the ground is really
                         (Case C-159/01)                                      affected.
                                                                        —     Failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons: the
                         (2001/C 212/14)                                      Commission has wrongfully failed to state any arguments
                                                                              as to why it considers that the input norms of 460 kg
                                                                              phosphate per hectare and 800 kg nitrogen per hectare
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     are too high to warrant the view that the exemption is
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  justified by the nature or general scheme of the system.
Communities on 13 April 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and J. van
Bakel, acting as Agents.                                                (1) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) annul the Commission’s decision (C(2000) 4404 final) of
      21 December 2000 on the exemption from mineral levies
      under the manure law which the Netherlands intends to
      grant;
(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Action brought on 20 April 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case C-173/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/15)
—     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC: the exemption does
      confer any advantage but merely removes an unintended
      disadvantage suffered by persons engaged in cultivation           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      in glasshouses or on substrate as a result of the fact that       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 April
      the Manure Law does not take account of the actual                2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      removal of minerals from the holding via plant products           represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal
      grown in glasshouses or on substrate. Moreover, what is           Adviser.
      involved is not an exemption properly so called but
      rather a rectification designed to correct an unfairness          The Commission claims that the Court should:
      affecting certain agricultural operators by virtue of the
      Manure Law; thus, the exemption rules, by their very              —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit laid
      nature, do not constitute an advantage conferred by the                 down the laws, regulations and administrative measures
      State (or financed from State funds). Furthermore, the                  necessary in order to comply with Council Directive
      levies are not designed to generate income for the State;               99/20/EC (1) of 22 March 1999 amending Directives
      instead, they are intended to regulate the use of manure,               70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs,
      and thus the effect on the environment. The exemption                   82/471/EEC concerning certain products used in animal
      does not affect trade between Member States.                            nutrition, 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the
                                                                              organisation of official inspections in the field of animal
                                                                              nutrition and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions
      It is not open to the Commission, within the framework
                                                                              and arrangements for approving and registering certain
      of the procedure under Article 88 EC, to take into
                                                                              establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal
      consideration the compatibility of the exemption rules
                                                                              feed sector, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
      with the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) (1). This is
                                                                              obligations under the Treaty and that directive;
      because the Commission’s assessment of the compati-
      bility or incompatibility of a measure with the common            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      market must be limited to an evaluation of the economic
      aspects. As it is, the Nitrates Directive does not pursue
      any economic objective.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      The Netherlands Government considers that, in any
      event, there can be no question of the exemption rules            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
      being incompatible with the Nitrates Directive. For the           directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
      purposes of cultivation on substrate, minerals are not            each Member State to which they are addressed.
 ---pagebreak--- C 212/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.7.2001
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are                  drive unoccupied Category D motor vehicles on ‘journeys
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,               necessitated by extraordinary circumstances’ without
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty              defining that criterion in any detail.
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.                                                               —     Paragraphs 20(4) and 40(5) in conjunction with Para-
                                                                               graph 20(4) of the Führerscheingesetz are contrary to the
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt                 directive, inasmuch as they do not require holders of
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.                          Category C1 driving licences to undergo periodic medical
                                                                               examinations.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 80, 25.3.1999, p. 20.
Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      icht Köln by order of 30 March 2001 in the case of
                              Austria                                                            Hüseyin Gözütok
                         (Case C-178/01)                                                          (Case C-187/01)
                         (2001/C 212/16)                                                          (2001/C 212/17)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April             European Communities by order of 30 March 2001 of the
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne),
represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, and Marie             which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European           for a preliminary ruling under Article 35(1) EC in conjunction
Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             with Paragraph 1(2) EuGHG in the criminal proceedings
office of Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service           against Hüseyin Gözütok on the following question of
of the European Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    interpretation concerning Article 54 of the Convention of
                                                                         19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at the
                                                                         common borders (the Schengen Implementing Convention):
(1) declare that, by enacting Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the
      Führerscheingesetz (Law on driving licences), the Repub-
      lic of Austria has infringed the fifth indent of Article 3(1)
      of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on                 Is there a bar to prosecution in the Federal Republic of
      driving licences (1) and that, by enacting Paragraphs 20(4)        Germany under Article 54 of the Schengen Implementing
      and 40(5) in conjunction with Paragraph 20(4) of the               Convention if, under Netherlands law, a prosecution on the
      Führerscheingesetz, the Republic of Austria has infringed          same facts is barred in the Netherlands?
      point 4 of Annex III to that directive;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                In particular, is that also the case where a decision by the
                                                                         Public Prosecutor’s Office to discontinue proceedings after the
                                                                         fulfilment of conditions (Netherlands ‘transactie’), which under
                                                                         the law of other Contracting States requires judicial approval,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         bars prosecution before a Netherlands court?
—     Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the Führerscheingesetz goes fur-
      ther than Article 3 of the directive in relation to
      authorisation to drive Category C motor vehicles, inas-
      much as it permits an extensive class of persons also to


title: Case T-35/15: Action brought on 14 January 2015  — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/39

         Action brought on 14 January 2015 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council
   (Case T-35/15)
   (2015/C 089/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as regards the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, as regards the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since it was not possible for the applicant to be heard prior to the adoption of the sanctions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment of the facts.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to engage in an occupation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are unlawful, since the requirements of Article 32 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and Articles 14 and 26 of Regulation No 36/2012 (2) are not met in that the applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily participate in any attempts to evade the European or international sanctions.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of power, since there is reason to believe, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, that the dispute measures have been taken with the main purpose of achieving ends other than those stated (market exclusion — favouring other players).

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

      (1)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).


title: Case T-282/17: Action brought on 11 May 2017 — UI (*) v Council

text:
                  21.8.2017

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 277/46

            Action brought on 11 May 2017 —  UI (*1) v Council
      (Case T-282/17)
      (2017/C 277/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant:
          UI (*1) (represented by: J. Diaz Cordova, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Order the defendant to establish him to the post of AST/SC 2 in the General Secretariat of the Council (DG A3).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant essentially calls into question the legality of the procedures which, the applicant maintains, have led to the wrongful failure to establish him in the post concerned. The applicant makes particular reference to the drawing up by the defendant of an additional document which, the applicant alleges, should not be taken into account in his evaluation, having been submitted long after the end of his probationary period. The applicant alleges that the defendant breached certain fundamental rights, including the right to private life, the confidentiality of communications and the right to submit complaints, when evaluating the applicant’s case.

         (*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.


title: Case C-79/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Gmalieva s.r.o. and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Gmalieva s.r.o. and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich
   (Case C-79/17)
   (2017/C 178/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gmalieva s.r.o., Celik KG, PBW GmbH, Antoaneta Claudia Gruber, Play For Me GmbH, Haydar Demir

      Defendant authority: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national statutory monopoly scheme in respect of games of chance to be regarded as coherent, within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU et seq., where

                           —

                           on the basis that

                           (a)

                           the facts can be established and assessed by reference to the evidence provided by public bodies and private individuals who are parties to the proceedings, as well as evidence that is a matter of public knowledge (see, in that regard, Case C-685/15); and

                           (b)

                           the legal analysis of other national courts which did not base themselves on an autonomous assessment of coherence is not binding (see, in that regard, Case C-589/16) —

                     judicial proceedings which, taking account of the abovementioned provisos, are thus presumed to be in compliance with the principle of fairness under Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, established the essential points of the context to which that statutory scheme belongs by finding that:

                           —

                           gambling addiction does not represent a societal problem justifying State intervention;

                           —

                           the playing of prohibited games of chance does not appear to be a criminal act, but a mere (albeit frequent) cause of trouble involving police involvement in an administrative context;

                           —

                           annual State income from games of chance exceeds EUR 500 million (= 0,4 % of the overall State budget); and

                           —

                           the advertising measures undertaken by licensees also seek principally to entice persons who have not previously played games of chance to do so?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is such a scheme, which does not explicitly establish in law the objectives that it pursues and does not require the State to prove that those objectives have in fact been achieved, but which shifts the task of preparing and verifying the essential criteria of coherence onto the national courts, in such a way that the requirement of a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is ultimately not guaranteed with certainty, to be viewed as coherent within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU et seq.?

               3.

               If Question 1 and/or Question 2 is/are answered in the affirmative: is such a scheme to be regarded as proportionate within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU et seq. in light of the broad, statutorily regulated, powers of intervention enjoyed by the authorities, which are not subject to any prior authorisation or review by a judicial body?

               4.

               If Questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative: is such a scheme to be regarded as proportionate within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU et seq. in view of the fact that the mere definition of strict conditions of access which do not, at the same time, restrict the number of licences to be granted would result in comparatively less interference with the freedom to provide services?

               5.

               If one of the preceding questions is answered in the negative: must a national court, which has ruled that the monopoly scheme of the GSpG (Glücksspielgesetz; the Law on Gambling) is not in accordance with EU law, not only find, on that basis, that the interventionist measures taken in the proceedings before it are unlawful, but also, of its own motion, in the exercise of its own jurisdictional powers (for example, by reopening the proceedings), reverse the legal sanctions (such as, for instance, administrative penalties) which have already become final?


title: Case C-482/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Teresa Cicala v Regione Siciliana (National administrative procedure — Administrative acts — Obligation to state reasons — Possibility of failure to state reasons being remedied during legal proceedings against an administrative act — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Teresa Cicala v Regione Siciliana
   (Case C-482/10) (1)

   (National administrative procedure - Administrative acts - Obligation to state reasons - Possibility of failure to state reasons being remedied during legal proceedings against an administrative act - Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2012/C 49/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Teresa Cicala

      Defendant: Regione Siciliana

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Interpretation of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Compatibility of national legislation providing that public authorities are not obliged to state reasons for their acts in certain circumstances or may supplement a lack of reasons for an administrative act in the course of court proceedings brought against that act

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to respond to the questions posed by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana (Italy), by decision of 20 September 2010.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Case C-58/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/84/EC — Information society — Radio broadcasting — Services based on conditional access — Services consisting of conditional access — Protected services — Legal protection — Devices giving unauthorised access)

text:
21.2.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 47/7
Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that, by failing to                 by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                    provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/84/EC of
necessary to comply with Article 4(c) of Commission Directive                the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets                     1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting
for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10) as                    of, conditional access (OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54), or, at the very
amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March                         least, by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of
1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), the Kingdom of Spain has failed                  those measures, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
to fulfil its obligations under those directives and the EC                  obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Treaty, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting              composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward                        Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
(Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                   Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January              has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it:
2004, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 4(c)              98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on                        20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based
      competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as               on, or consisting of, conditional access, the Kingdom of Spain
      amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
      1996, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                                  2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                               of 7 January 2004
                         of 7 January 2004                                   in Case C-60/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Landesgericht Eisenstadt): X (1)
in Case C-58/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               (Counterfeit and pirated goods — No criminal penalty for
                                                                             the transit of counterfeit goods — Compatibility with
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 3295/94)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
98/84/EC — Information society — Radio broadcasting —
Services based on conditional access — Services consisting                                                (2004/C 47/12)
of conditional access — Protected services — Legal protection
            — Devices giving unauthorised access)                                                (Language of the case: German)
                            (2004/C 47/11)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-60/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                   in the European Court Reports)                            by the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) for a preliminary
                                                                             ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against X,
                                                                             on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94
                                                                             of 22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the
In Case C-58/02, Commission of the European Communities                      entry into the Community and the export and re-export
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Shotter v Kingdom of Spain                 from the Community of goods infringing certain intellectual
(Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that,              property rights (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8), as amended by Council


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case C-346/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels): Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau v. Prolacto NV (Common agricultural policy - Food aid - Supply of skimmed-milk powder - Successful tenderer's failure to discharge its obligations - Loss of security - Payment of the additional costs resulting from a fresh tendering procedure - Cumulation)

text:
28.3.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 94/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       provisions for the implementation of Regulation
                       (First Chamber)                                    (EEC) No 2913/92.
                     of 15 January 1998
                                                                     2. Article 398 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 allows
in Case C-292/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 customs authorities to grant the status of authorised
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Göritz Intransco Internatio-               consignor even when it is no longer possible to exempt
         nal GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (1)                          such consignor from the obligation to present the
(Community Customs Code Ð Community transit                               goods at the office of departure because they have
procedure Ð Simplified procedures Ð Authorised                            already been presented to customs.
        consignor status Ð Conditions for granting)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
                         (98/C 94/01)
              (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
In Case C-292/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                                of 29 January 1998
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht (Finance Court),             in Case C-346/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Düsseldorf (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels): Belgisch Inter-
proceedings pending before that court between Göritz                         ventie- en Restitutiebureau v. Prolacto NV (1)
Intransco International GmbH and Hauptzollamt Düssel-
dorf Ð on the interpretation of Article 76 of Council                (Common agricultural policy Ð Food aid Ð Supply of
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                       skimmed-milk powder Ð Successful tenderer's failure to
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,                   discharge its obligations Ð Loss of security Ð Payment of
19.10.1992, p. 1) and Article 398 of Commission                      the additional costs resulting from a fresh tendering
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down                                 procedure Ð Cumulation)
provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC)                                         (98/C 94/02)
No 2913/92 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: D. A. O. Edward
(Rapporteur), acting as President of the Chamber, P. Jann                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgement on 15 January 1998,
the operative part of which is as follows:                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
1. Under Article 76(4) of Council Regulation (EEC)
    No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the                   In Case C-346/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
    Community Customs Code, customs authorities may                  of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg
    grant the status of authorised consignor only on the             (Court of First Instance), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling
    basis of Articles 398 to 405 of Commission Regulation            in the proceedings pending before that court between Bel-
    (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down                      gisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and Prolacto NV Ð
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/2                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.3.98
on the interpretation of Article 25(1) of Commission                 1. annuls Commission Decision 95/204/EC of 31 May
Regulation (EEC) No 1354/83 of 17 May 1983 laying                         1995 implementing Article 20(2) of Council Directive
down general rules for the mobilisation and supply of                     89/106/EEC on construction products;
skimmed-milk powder, butter and butteroil as food aid
(OJ L 142, 1.6.1983, p. 1) Ð the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),                    2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                     (1) OJ C 248, 23.9.1995.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
29 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1354/83 of 17 May
1983 laying down general rules for the mobilisation and
supply of skimmed-milk powder, butter and butteroil as                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
food aid must be interpreted to the effect that in the
absence of force majeure a tenderer who has failed to                                        (Fifth Chamber)
deliver the goods concerned within the appropriate time                                   of 12 February 1998
limits must bear all the financial consequences of that
failure in accordance with the first paragraph of                    in    Case    C-92/96: Commission of the European
Article 25(1) of that Regulation, even if the tendering                          Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
securities have already been declared forfeit in application         (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Directive 76/160/EEC Ð
of Article 26(6) of that Regulation, and those securities                              Quality of bathing water)
may not be deducted from the amounts due as
compensation for the damage caused by failure to deliver                                       (98/C 94/04)
the goods on the basis of the first paragraph of
Article 25(1) of the Regulation.                                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-92/96: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Fernando
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Castillo de la Torre) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Gloria
                     of 10 February 1998                             Calvo Díaz) Ð application for a declaration that, by
                                                                     failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that the
in Case C-263/95: Federal Republic of Germany v.
                                                                     quality of inshore bathing waters in Spain conforms to the
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                     limit values set in Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/
(Approximation of laws Ð Construction products Ð                     EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of
           Standing Committee on Construction)                       bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1), the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of
                         (98/C 94/03)
                                                                     that Directive and under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.
               (Language of the case: German)                        Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón,
                                                                     Judges: C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Hubeau, Principal-Administrator, for the Registrar, has
         published in the European Court Reports)                    given a judgment on 12 February 1998, in which it:
In Case C-263/95: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                     1. declares that, by failing to take all necessary measures
Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) v. Commission of the
                                                                          to ensure that the quality of inshore bathing waters in
European Communities (Agents: Ulrich Wölker and
                                                                          Spain conforms to the limit values set in accordance
Antonio Aresu) Ð application for annulment of
                                                                          with Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of
Commission Decision 95/204/EC of 31 May 1995
                                                                          8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
implementing Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/
                                                                          water, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
EEC on construction products (OJ L 129, 14.6.1995,
                                                                          obligations under Article 4 thereof;
p. 23) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R.
Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.             2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward,
G. Hirsch, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou,
                                                                     (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 February 1998, in which it:


title: Case T-67/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Ford Motor v OHIM (FUN) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark FUN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Ford Motor v OHIM (FUN)
   (Case T-67/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark FUN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 19/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Ford Motor Co. (Dearborn, Michigan, United States) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, Agent)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1135/2006-2), concerning an application for registration of the Community word mark FUN.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1135/2006 2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-363/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Equality Tribunal (Ireland) made on 30 July 2012 — Z v A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Equality Tribunal (Ireland) made on 30 July 2012 — Z v A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School
   (Case C-363/12)
   2012/C 311/06
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   The Equality Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Z

      Defendants: A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the following provisions of the primary law of the European Union:

                           (i)

                           Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union,

                           (ii)

                           Articles 8 and 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and/or

                           (iii)

                           Articles 21, 23, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
                           Is Directive 2006/54/EC, and in particular Articles 4 and 14 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that there is discrimination on the ground of sex where a woman — whose genetic child has been born through a surrogacy arrangement, and who is responsible for the care of her genetic child from birth — is refused paid leave from employment equivalent to maternity leave and/or adoptive leave?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is Directive 2006/54/EC (1) compatible with the above provisions of the primary law of the European Union?

               3.

               Having regard to the following provisions of the primary law of the European Union:

                           (i)

                           Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and/or

                           (ii)

                           Articles 21, 26 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
                           Is Directive 2000/78/EC (2), and in particular Articles 3(1) and 5 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that there is discrimination on the ground of disability where a woman — who suffers from a disability which prevents her from giving birth, whose genetic child has been born through a surrogacy arrangement, and who is responsible for the care of her genetic child from birth — is refused paid leave from employment equivalent to maternity leave and/or adoptive leave?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is in the negative, is Directive 2000/78/EC compatible with the above provisions of the primary law of the European Union?

               5.

               Is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities capable of being relied on for the purposes of interpreting, and/or of challenging the validity, of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               6.

               If the answer to the fifth question is in the affirmative, is Directive 2000/78/EC, and in particular Articles 3 and 5 thereof, compatible with Articles 5, 6, 27(1)(b) and 28(2)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

      (1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)
   OJ L 204, p. 23

      (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC OF 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation


title: Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-93/95)

text:
No C 159/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 24 . 6 . 95
2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                                    health problems affecting intra-Community trade
                                                                                in meat products and amending Directive
                                                                                64/43 3/EEC (4), and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                — Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992
In view of the binding nature of the third paragraph of                              introducing Community measures for the control of
Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC                           avian influenza ( 5 ),
Treaty, the Member States are required to adopt the
measures necessary to give effect to the Directives addressed
to them before the end of the period appointed for that                          the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
purpose. That period ended on 31 December 1992 without                           obligations under the EC Treaty and under the above
the requisite provisions having been adopted by Spain.                           Directives ;
(0    OJ No  L 183 , 29 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .                                 2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                                costs .
(2 )  OJ No  L 393 , 30.   11 . 1989, pp . 1 , 13 , and 18 .
(-5 ) OJ No  L 156 , 21 . 6 . 1990 , pp . 9 and 14 .
(4 )  OJ No  L 196 , 26 . 7 . 1990 , p . 1 .
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
                                                                             C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on
                                                                             1 January 1993 .
Action brought on 17 March 1995 by the Commission of                         f1) OJ No   L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of                     (2) OJ No   L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 41
                                 Germany                                     (3) OJ No   L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 69
                                                                             (4) OJ No   L 57, 2 . 3 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                            ( Case C-86/95 )
                                                                             (5) OJ No   L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992, p . 1 .
                              ( 95/C 159/11 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 17 March 1995 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of
Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                  the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-93/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/12 )
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      time limits the measures necessary to comply with:                     An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                             before the Court of Justice on 27 March 1995 by the
      — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
         concerning the animal health conditions governing                   Antonio Caeiro, Legal Advisor, acting as Agent, with an
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
          and products ( ! ),                                                Kremlis , of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      — Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November
          1990 concerning public health and animal problems                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
          affecting the production and placing on the market
          of rabbit meat and farmed game meat (2 ),                          — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                period the measures necessary to implement in full
      — Council Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991                            Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990
          amending and consolidating Directive 64/433/EEC                        amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts
          on health problems affecting intra-Community trade                     and Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as
          in fresh meat to extend it to the production and                       regards the scope of those Directives, the Portuguese
          marketing of fresh meat ( 3 ),                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                Treaty,
      — Council Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February 1992
          amending and updating Directive 77/99/EEC on                       — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95         |_EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/7
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, acting as
                                                                      Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
Case C-79/95 ; the period prescribed for the transposition of
the Directive expired on 1 January 1993 .                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                            time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                            with Council Directive 89/666/EEC ( l ) of 21 December
                                                                            1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of
Action brought on 24 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                            branches opened in a Member State by certain types of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                            company governed by the law of another State and
                              Germany                                       Council Directive 89/667/EEC ( 2 ) of the same date on
                        ( Case C-96/95 )                                    single-member private limited-liability companies, the
                          ( 95/C 159/ 13 )                                  Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under the EC Treaty,
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      — declare, in the            alternative , that by failing to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         communicate to the Commission the texts of the
Communities on 24 March 1 995 by the Commission of the
                                                                            provisions of national law transposing Directives
European Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, a
                                                                            89/666/EEC and 89/667/EEC, pursuant to Article 16 of
member of the Commission's Legal Service, and Horstpeter                    Directive   89/666/EEC and Article        8 of Directive
Kreppel, a judge of the Arbeitsgericht ( Labour Court ) on
                                                                            89/667/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
secondment to the Commission's Legal Service, with an
                                                                            its obligations under the EC Treaty,
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                   — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
     time limit the legal and administrative provisions               in Case C-79/95 ; the time limit prescribed by the two
     necessary to implement Council Directive 90/365/EEC              Directives expired on 1 January 1992 .
     of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees
     and self-employed persons who have ceased their                  f 1 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 36 .
     occupational activity i 1 ) and Council Directive                ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 40 .
     90/364/EEC of 28 June 1 990 on the right of residence ( 2 )
     or, in the alternative, by failing to communicate such
     provisions promptly to the Commission, the Federal
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the EC Treaty;                                             Action brought on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                                 Germany
     costs .
                                                                                ( Case C-101/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                brought before the Court of Justice of the European
30 June 1992 .                                                        Communities on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
(M OJ No L 180 , 13 . 7. 1990 , p . 28 .
                                                                      Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
(2 ) OJ No L 180, 13 . 7. 1990, p . 26 .                              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                      Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of                        time limit the measures necessary to comply with
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on
                              Belgium                                       the protection of animals during transport and
                        ( Case C-98/95 )                                    amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91 /496/EEC ( J ),
                                                                            the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                          ( 95/C 159/14 )                                   obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
                                                                            Directive;
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on            2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
27 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                             costs .


title: Case C-33/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-153/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/8

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-153/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

   (Case C-33/15 P)
   (2015/C 429/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (represented by: A. Rizzoli, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona
   By order of 15 October 2015 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-393/11: Action brought on 26 July 2011 — Masottina v OHIM — Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante (CA' MARINA)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/35

         Action brought on 26 July 2011 — Masottina v OHIM — Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante (CA' MARINA)
   (Case T-393/11)
   2011/C 282/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Masottina SpA [Conegliano (TV), Italy] (represented by: N. Schaeffer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante, trading as Coop. V. BOCOPA (Alicante, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul and rescind the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2011 in case R 518/2010-1, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division of 2 February 2010

               —

               Decline and reject the action formed by Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante, Coop. V. BOCOPA, and by which it opposed the registration of the trademark ‘CA’ MARINA’, and admit the application for registration of the Community trademark No 6375216 to which Masottina SpA shall be entitled; and

               —

               Sentence Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante, Coop. V. BOCOPA, to payment of all court and related costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CA’ MARINA’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 6375216

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1796374 of the word mark ‘MARINA ALTA’, for goods in class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the CTM application for all the goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal erroneously applied the above mentioned Article: (i) as regards the absence or at least an insufficient determination and distinction of the trademark ‘MARINA ALTA’; (ii) as there is no existence of any risk of confusion in respect of the concerned signs; and (iii) regarding the lacking consideration that there does not exist any identity of the merchandises, their respective channels of distribution and the public of reference.


title: Case T-395/04: Action brought on 5 October 2004 by Air One SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/49

         Action brought on 5 October 2004 by Air One SpA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-395/04)
   (2004/C 300/95)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 October 2004 by Air One SpA, represented by Gianluca Belotti and Matteo Padellaro, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare and rule that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, since, despite having been formally requested to do so, it failed to define its position on the complaint made on 22 December 2003 by Air One concerning illegal State aid which the Italian authorities granted to the air carrier Ryanair;

               —

               order the Commission to define its position without further delay on the complaint made by the applicant and adopt a formal measure in that connection and on the preventive measures requested;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs in any case, even if it becomes unnecessary to give a judgment in the event that the Commission adopts a measure whilst the proceedings are pending.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that, by letter dated 22 December 2003, it submitted a complaint to the European Commission on account of illegal aid granted to the Irish air carrier Ryanair at various Italian airports, in the form of extremely competitive airport tariffs and prices for services provided to aeroplanes using Italian airports, at times without any charge whatsoever being made.
   In the absence of any reply from the Commission, Air One formally called on the latter to define its position on the complaint within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 232 EC. Four months having passed without the Commission having defined its position, Air One decided to bring an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
   In that respect, it must be emphasised that failure, for a period of nine months, to reply to a well-constructed complaint based on facts which, to a large extent and in similar cases, have already been examined by the Commission and found to constitute a grant of State aid and the Commission's failure to take action against the Italian authorities on account of the alleged aid, which is illegal and, very probably, incompatible with the common market, can only be declared unlawful by the Court of First Instance.
   According to the applicant it is also worth noting that the contested aid was granted to an undertaking operating in the air transport sector — a sector which is already receiving special attention from the Commission in connection with State aid.


               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/28

         Criteria for the assignment of cases to chambers
   (2007/C 235/51)
   On 19 September 2007, in accordance with Article 4 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Civil Service Tribunal decided to maintain in force until 30 September 2008 the following conditions for the assignment of cases to chambers:

               —

               the First Chamber shall hear all cases, with the exception of those principally concerning questions of recruitment, assessment/promotion and final termination of service, which shall be heard by the Second Chamber;

               —

               a number of cases shall be assigned to the Third Chamber, regardless of the subject-matter involved, at regular intervals to be determined at a plenary meeting of the Tribunal;

               —

               derogations from the above rules on assignment may be made for reasons of connections between cases and to ensure a balanced and reasonably varied workload within the Tribunal.


title: Case T-282/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Inpost Paczkomaty v Commission

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/58

         Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Inpost Paczkomaty v Commission
   (Case T-282/16)
   (2016/C 270/65)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o. (Cracow, Poland) (represented by: T. Proć, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision (EU) C(2015) 8236 of 26 November 2015 on State aid SA.38869 (2014/N), which Poland intends to grant to the Polish postal service as compensation for net costs arising in the years 2013-2015 in connection with the duty to provide universal services;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant raises seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of heading 19 (Clause 2.6) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)], infringement of the Treaty principles on public procurement and incorrect application of Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14; ‘the Postal Services Directive’)

                           —

                           The methods of financing the provision of universal services applied by the Member States must be consistent with the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and equal treatment (including the choice of the provider of universal postal services by way of competition) arising from the provisions of the TFEU on the internal market freedoms, and also with Article 106(2) TFEU, which was not the case in the present dispute.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty and incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of headings 14 (Clause 2.2) and 60 (Clause 2.10) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)]

                           —

                           The European Commission proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the duty borne by the Polish postal service to provide public services is in fact consistent with the requirements laid down in the Postal Services Directive and that it is therefore not necessary, as proof of the exact assessment of public service needs, to carry out a public consultation or use some other appropriate means to take the interests of users and service providers into account.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of heading 52 (Clause 2.9) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)] and infringement of Article 7(1), (3) and (5) of the Postal Services Directive

                           —

                           The European Commission proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the compensation fund fulfils the requirement of non-discrimination in relation to the uniform maximum contribution in the amount of 2 % of the revenue of the provider of universal services or substitutable services; this percentage of the contribution to be paid by providers applies uniformly to all market operators, which is discriminatory since the situation of the provider of universal services and the situation of the provider of substitutable services are not the same.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of the Postal Services Directive, since the European Commission acknowledges that the costs of the universal service were financed through a multitude of exclusive and special rights which were granted to the Polish postal service

                           —

                           Article 7(1) of the Postal Services Directive provides that the Member States may not grant or maintain in force exclusive or special rights for the establishment and provision of postal services. At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that the Polish postal service was granted exclusive and special rights in connection with the universal services being provided by it.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 102, in conjunction with Article 106(1), of the Treaty

                           —

                           The disproportionately high contribution to the compensation fund leads to ‘anticompetitive foreclosure’ of the postal services market.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 and Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           By the contested decision, a State aid scheme (programme) was confirmed which results in a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to property and a disproportionate restriction of its freedom to conduct a business.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty

                           —

                           The Commission incorrectly determined the circumstances and frequently based its decision on incorrectly determined facts. In addition, the Commission thereby failed to state adequate reasons, since it did not — contrary to its own decision-making practice — take account, as regards the effect on competition, of the failure to launch a call for tenders as an incriminating factor.


title: Case T-145/03: Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Festival Crociere SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.6.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 146/45
Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Festival Crociere SpA                     —      second, that the Commission has not correctly assessed
against the Commission of the European Communities                                  certain specific economic factors mentioned in Para-
                                                                                graph 11 of the decision, concerning in particular:
                                                                                continued competition from other operators, prospects
                          (Case T-145/03)                                           of growth in the market, barriers to entry and the real
                                                                                prospects of competing with Carnival/P&O’s dominance
                                                                                in the market. The Commission not only failed to base its
                          (2003/C 146/80)                                           conclusions on a coherent objective justification, but also
                                                                                failed to appraise, as is essential in this case, the effects of
                                                                                the new financial structure of the dual-listed company
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                with reference to the main competitive factors. Had the
                                                                                Commission properly analysed these, it would not have
                                                                                confined itself to referring, without further reflection, to
                                                                                the first decision, but would have reconsidered the
                                                                                assessments made at the time of the first decision, or at
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                           least commenced an in-depth enquiry.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 April 2003 by Festival Crociere
SpA, represented by Professor G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and
I. Perego, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the contested decision;                                          Action brought on 6 May 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l.
                                                                               against the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-151/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                        (2003/C 146/81)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By this action the applicant company challenges the Com-
mission’s Decision of 10 February 2003 authorising, pursuant
to Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, a concen-
tration between Carnival Cruises and P&O Princess II.
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of its claims the applicant submits:                              European Communities on 6 May 2003 by Nuova Agricast
                                                                             S.r.l., represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, avvocato.
—     first, that the Commission has not correctly appraised the
      new corporate structure arising from the merger or its
      economic and financial implications. The Commission                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      should have found that the structure of the dual-listed
      company was, of itself, capable of conferring very signifi-
      cant competitive advantages on Carnival, including                     —      Annul the contested measures;
      advantages in terms of financial strength, likely to give it
      overwhelming power on the market such that other                       —      Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
      operators would no longer be able to compete. From this
      point of view the decision appears to be vitiated by a
      manifest error of assessment, as well as an inadequate
      statement of reasons in that the Commission failed to
      consider an essential fact which must be taken into                    Pleas in law and main arguments
      account in order properly to evaluate the competition
      aspects of the concentration. Had that fact been properly
      examined, it would necessarily have led the Commission
      to prohibit the concentration or, at least, to initiate an             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
      in-depth enquiry under Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation                   invoked in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast S.r.l. v Commission
      No 4064/89;                                                            of the European Communities (1).


title: Case C-467/07: Order of the President of the Court of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Livadia Court of First Instance (Greece) — Panagiotis Koskovolis, Ekaterini Pappa v Municipality of Kiriaki

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Livadia Court of First Instance (Greece) — Panagiotis Koskovolis, Ekaterini Pappa v Municipality of Kiriaki
   (Case C-467/07) (1)

   2009/C 282/55

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Case C-392/07: Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/10

         Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-392/07)
   (2007/C 235/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (1) in so far as it relates to the transfer of the registered office of a European Company (SE) or a European Cooperative Society (SCE) and the inclusion of the SE and the SCE in the list of companies covered by the Directive, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing into national law the provisions of the Directive regarding the transfer of the registered office of an SE or of an SCE and the entry (a) in the Annex expired on 1 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 58, p. 19.


title: Case T-387/10: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Goutier v OHIM — Euro Data (ARANTAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ARANTAX — Earlier national word mark ANTAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Goutier v OHIM — Euro Data (ARANTAX)
   (Case T-387/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ARANTAX - Earlier national word mark ANTAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 80/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Klaus Goutier (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: E. Happe, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Euro Data GmbH & Co. KG, Datenverarbeitungsdienst (Saarbrucken, Germany) (represented by: D. Wagner, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2010 (Case R 126/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Euro Data GmbH & Co. KG, Datenverarbeitungsdienst and Mr Klaus Goutier.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Klaus Goutier to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-463/99: Action brought on 2 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 47/20                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.2.2000
— None of the existing general or toxic waste plans submitted              brought by an aggrieved party against a decision taken by the
      by Ireland contain a specific chapter on the management              national regulatory authority?
      of packaging and packaging waste. They thus fail to
      comply with Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC;
                                                                           2.     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
— With regard to Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC, the                    are Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC, Article 2(3) and 4 of
      existing general waste plans submitted by Ireland do not             Commission Directive 96/2/EC (3), and Articles 9(2) and 11(2)
      cover hazardous waste;                                               of Directive 97/13/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           the Council, or the other provisions of Community law, to be
— With regard to Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as                     construed as precluding a provision of national law under
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, the general waste                   which existing holders of a licence for the provision of reserved
      management plans submitted by Ireland were prepared                  mobile telecommunications services within the digital cellular
      pursuant to Irish implementing legislation for Directive             mobile communications sector may, prior to the expiry of
      75/442/EEC before it was amended by Directive                        three years from the entry into force of the decision granting
      91/156/EEC. They were not prepared by reference to the               the DCS-1800 licence in 1997 to an applicant, be granted
      specific requirements of the Irish implementing legislation          additional frequencies from the frequency band reserved for
      for amendments to Directive 75/442/EEC effected by                   DCS-1800 if it is established that, despite employing all
      Directive 91/156/EEC. They therefore cannot be con-                  commercially viable technical possibilities, their user capacity
      sidered as fulfilling the obligations which Ireland has              has been exhausted, where those additional frequencies may
      under Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive                  be allocated without a requirement that a separate fee for their
      91/156/EEC.                                                          use be paid and may also be allocated to a public undertaking
                                                                           holding a dominant market position within the 900 MHz
                                                                           sector?
( 1) of the Council, of 15 July 1975 (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39).
( 2) of 18.3.1991 (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32).
( 3) of 12 December 1991 (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48).                    ( 1) OJ L 192 of 24.7.1990, p. 1.
( 4) European Parliament and Council Directive of 20 December 1994         ( 2) OJ L 295 of 29.10.1997, p. 23.
     (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).                                        ( 3) OJ L 20 of 26.1.1996, p. 59.
                                                                           ( 4) OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof (Austria) by order of 24 November 1999 in                        Action brought on 2 December 1999 by the Commission
the appeal brought by Connect Austria Gesellschaft für                     of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
Telekommunikation GmbH against the Telekom-Control-                                                          lic
Kommission (intervening party: Mobilkom Austria
                         Aktiengesellschaft)
                                                                                (Case C-463/99)
                           (Case C-462/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/33)
                            (2000/C 47/32)
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 December
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by order of 24 November 1999 from                     represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Federal Administrative Court)                  and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on
(Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on                     secondment to that service, with an address for service in
2 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
brought by Connect Austria Gesellschaft für Telekommunika-                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
tion GmbH against the Telekom-Control-Kommission (Tele-
com Monitoring Commission) (intervening party: Mobilkom
Austria Aktiengesellschaft) on the following questions:                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — declare that, by not adopting and, as a subsidiary claim,
1.      On a proper construction of Article 5a(3) of Council                    by not communicating to the Commission, within the
Directive 90/387/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/51/EC (2)                  time-limit laid down the laws, regulations and administrat-
of the European Parliament and of the Council, does that                        ive provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
provision have direct effect in the sense that, overriding                      Directive 96/62/EC (1) of 27 September 1996 on ambient
a contrary domestic rule of jurisdiction, it establishes the                    air quality assessment and management, the Hellenic
jurisdiction of a specific ‘independent body’ at national level to              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
implement a ‘suitable mechanism’ for dealing with an appeal                     and that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/21
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         the Commission. That period expired on 16 March 1998
                                                                        without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                        Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         into national law.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex          (1) OJ L 243 of 24.9.1996, p. 31.
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That period expired on 21 May 1998
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
into national law.                                                      Appeal brought on 3 December 1999 by PARTEX, Com-
                                                                        panhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, against the judgment
                                                                        delivered on 16 September 1999 by the Third Chamber
(1) OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 55.
                                                                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties in Case T-182/96 (1) between PARTEX, Companhia
                                                                        Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, and Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-465/99 P)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                                          (2000/C 47/35)
                                lic
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September
                         (Case C-464/99)                                1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-182/96 between PARTEX,
                          (2000/C 47/34)                                Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, and Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities was brought before the Court of
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the          Justice of the European Communities on 3 December 1999 by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December              PARTEX, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, represented
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     by Rui Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete and Miguel
represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service,          Pena Machete, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
secondment to that service, with an address for service in              Rheinsheim, L-2419 Luxembourg.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                The appellant claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            1. set aside the contested judgment on the ground of error in
                                                                            law in that the legislation applicable to the European Social
— declare that, by not adopting and, as a subsidiary claim,                 Fund (ESF) was incorrectly applied and/or on the ground
    by not communicating to the Commission, within the                      that the decision regarding the existence of abuse of rights
    time-limit laid down the laws, regulations and administrat-             and breach of the rights of the defence, of the principles of
    ive provisions necessary to comply fully with Council                   good faith, of the protection of legitimate expectations and
    Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the                      of acquired rights was wrong as was the decision regarding
    disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated               misuse of powers, inasmuch as they are based on matters
    terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic Republic has failed to               of fact which are materially wrong or inaccurate, reserving,
    fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that directive;             however, that part of the judgment in which it upheld in
                                                                            part the action brought by PARTEX in Case T-182/96;
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        2. accordingly, annul Commission Decision C(96) 1184 of
                                                                            14 August 1996, which was the subject-matter of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             action in Case T-182/9, on the ground that the Com-
                                                                            mission infringed the legislation applicable to the ESF;
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex          3. in the event that it should dismiss the claims set out above,
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)              set aside the contested judgment, reserving, however, that
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into                   part of the judgment in which it upheld in part the action
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that             brought by PARTEX in Case T-182/96, on the ground that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to                    it adjudicates on only part of the substance of the case;