title: Appeal brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 6 June 1995 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-14/93 between the Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-264/95 P)

text:
No C 248/ 10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 9 . 95
       — Council Directive 84/156/EEC ( 3 ) of 8 March 1984                     was not properly obtained . Since the German language
           on limit values and quality objectives for mercury                   version of the drafts was not made available within the
           discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali                    period prescribed in the rules of procedure of the said
           electrolysis industry,                                               committee, it was not possible to make a decision
                                                                                thereon,
       — Council Directive 84/49 1 /EEC ( 4 ) of 9 October
           1984 on limit values and quality objectives for                  — infringement of essential procedural requirements : the
           discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane,                                 majority required by the third sentence of Article 20 ( 3 )
                                                                                of Directive 89/106/EEC for the Standing Committee to
       — Council Directive 86/280/EEC ( 5 ) of 12 June 1986                     take a Decision was not obtained at the meeting on
           on limit values and quality objectives for discharges                30 November 1994 . The rules of procedure of the
           of certain dangerous substances included in List I of                Standing Committee lay down detailed provisions for
           the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC;                                   the exercise of voting rights; there exists no written
                                                                                procedure for the adoption of resolutions, nor any
( 2 ) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                          provision for the exercise of voting rights after meetings
       costs .
                                                                                have ended,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         — infringement of Article 13 ( 4 ) of Directive 89/106/EEC :
                                                                                the initial testing of a product must in principle extend
limit values for emissions must be laid down on the basis of                    to all characteristics reasonably connected with the
environmental protection directives by means of provisions                      product which are important for the fulfilment of the
the mandatory nature of which must be undisputable, which                       essential requirements in accordance with the provisions
enable individuals to assert their rights and which provide                     of Annex I of Directive 89/106/EEC . However, the
those responsible for compliance with emission norms with                       Commission, in adopting the contested Decision, did not
precise information regarding their obligations . So-called                     deal fully with the relevant product characteristics; for
administrative provisions, the mandatory nature of which                        example, its consideration of health and environmental
does not extend beyond the local district of the                                protection aspects was merely selective and incomplete .
administrative authorities concerned, do not fulfil those                       Consequently, the contested Decision does not satisfy
requirements .                                                                  the concerns referred to in Article 100a ( 3 ) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty,
(')   OJ No    L 81 , 27 . 3 . 1982 , p . 29 .
(2)   OJ No    L 291 , 24 . 10 . 1983 ,   p. 1 .                            — infringement of the obligation to give a statement of
(3)   OJ No    L 74, 17. 3 . 1984 , p .   49 .                                  reasons (Article 190 of the EC Treaty ): the Federal
(4)   OJ No    L 274 , 17 . 10 . 1984,    p . 11                                Government was involved in the preparation of the
( 5)  OJ No    L 181 , 4 . 7. 1986 , p.   16 .                                  Decision, yet even it is unable to see the considerations
                                                                                on the basis of which the Commission declined to have
                                                                                regard to essential requirements ( for example, in the case
                                                                                of thermal insulating products : energy economy and
                                                                                heat retention, as well as hygiene, health and
Action brought on 7 August 1995 by the Federal Republic                         environmental protection; in the case of precast concrete
of Germany against the Commission of the European                               products : safety in use; in the case of windows, doors
                                 Communities                                    etc .: protection against noise ), and these must a fortiori
                                                                                be unclear to the Court of Justice, which has been called
                              ( Case C-263/95 )                                 upon to exercise its powers of judicial review .
                                ( 95/C 248/21 )
                                                                            (') OJ No L 129 , 14 . 6 . 1995 , p . 23 .
An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities on 7 August 1995 by the Federal
 Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
 Ministerialrat, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat,                        Appeal brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
 Federal Ministry of Economics, D-53107 Bonn.                               European Communities against the judgment delivered on
                                                                            6 June 1995 by the Third Chamber ( extended composition )
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            in Case T-14/93 between the Union Internationale des
 ( 1 ) annul Commission Decision 95/204/EC (') of 31 May                    Chemins de Fer and the Commission of the European
        1995 implementing Article 20 ( 2 ) of Council Directive                                        Communities
        89/ 106/EEC on construction products .
                                                                                ( Case C-264/95 P)
 ( 2 ) order the defendant to pay the costs .                                                          95/C 248/22 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 June 1995 by
                                                                            the Third Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of
 — infringement of essential procedural requirements : the                  First Instance of the European Communities in Case
       opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction                    T-14/93 between the Union Internationale des Chemins de
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 9 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 248/ 11
Fer and the Commission of the European Communities was               Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court) of 20 June 1995 ,
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  which was received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1995 ,
Communities on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pascual Merino Garcia
European Communities, represented by Bernd Langeheine,               v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit, Kindergeldkasse, on the
of the Legal Service, and Gerard de Bergues, a national              following questions :
official on secondment to the Commission, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of           1 . is subsection I C of Annex I to Regulation ( EEC ) No
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                        1408/71 (^ compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
                                                                          Article 48 ( 2 ) thereof, in so far as it leads to a situation
The appellant claims that the Court should :                              where workers with children resident outside Germany
                                                                          have no right to child allowance in respect of full
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          calendar months included within a lengthy period of
     6 June 1995 ,
                                                                          unpaid leave but such workers with children resident in
— dismiss the action brought before the Court of First                    Germany do have that right ?
     Instance by the Union Internationale des Chemins de
     Fer, or alternatively refer it back to the Court of First       2 . if subsection I C of Annex I to Regulation ( EEC ) No
     Instance ,                                                           1408/71 is invalid , is the consequence thereof that an
                                                                          'employed person' within the meaning of Article 73 of
— order the respondent to pay the costs incurred by the                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 is any person who has
     Commission both in the proceedings before the Court                  been given unpaid leave of absence by his employer on
     of First Instance and in those before the Court of                   the basis of a voluntary agreement, or are there
     Justice .                                                            restrictions in that respect ( e.g. as regards the duration
                                                                          of the leave of absence )?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission considers that the Court of First Instance            (>) OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p . 2 .
committed a threefold error of law in ruling:
— first, that Regulation (EEC ) No 1017/68 also applies
     to agreements, decisions and concerted practices
     concerning activities which are 'related to', and               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
     ' indispensable for', the provision of transport services,      Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, by orders of that
     when that Regulation covers, apart from specific                court of 13 July 1995 , in the case of Merck & Co. Inc. and
     agreements which are restrictively listed and irrelevant                    others against Primecrown Ltd and others
     to the present case , only agreements, decisions and                                      Case C-267/95
     concerted practices which directly concern the provision
     of transport,                                                                              ( 95/C 248/24 )
— second , that leaflet No 130 of the Union Internationale           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     des Chemins de Fer covers both the supply of transport          European Communities by orders of the High Court of
     and transport rates within the meaning of Regulation            Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, of 13 July 1995 ,
      ( EEC ) No 1017/68 , when the contested provisions             which were received at the Court Registry on 8 August
     thereof restrict competition not on the transport market         1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Merck & Co .
     but on the market for the distribution of tickets,              Inc . and others against Primecrown Ltd and others, on the
— lastly, that by offering railway tickets for sale on behalf        following questions :
     of railway companies, travel agencies perform
      ' operations of providers of services ancillary to              1.    that the provisions and effect of Article 47 of the
     transport' within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation               Spanish Treaty of Accession to the European
      ( EEC ) No 1017/68 , when travel agents do not fall within            Communities will continue to apply to
      the professional category of providers of services                    pharmaceutical products
      ancillary to transport and the Regulation applies in any
                                                                      1.1   imported from Spain; or
      event only to the operations of such providers of
      ancillary services which are directly related to the            1.2   first marketed in Spain
      provision of transport.
                                                                            until
                                                                             ( a ) 7 October 1995 ; or
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes                          ( b ) 31 December 1995 , or
 sozialgericht, by order of that court of 20 June 1995 , in the              ( c ) 7 October 1996 , or
 case of Pascual Merino Garcia against Bundesanstalt fur
                     Arbeit, Kindergeldkasse                                 ( d ) 31 December 1996 , or
                        ( Case C-266/95 )                                    ( e ) the end of the third year after the particular
                          ( 95/C 248/23 )                                           pharmaceutical , protected by a product patent in
                                                                                one or more Member State(s ) of the European
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                                    Union and which was previously unpatentable in
 of the European Communities by an order of the                                     Spain, has become patentable in Spain


title: Case T-562/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades and Others v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/62

         Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades and Others v Commission
   (Case T-562/08)
   (2009/C 44/106)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades, SA (Madrid, Spain), Repsol Petróleo, SA (Madrid, Spain), Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and S. Rivero Mena, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Decision; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision which is the subject of the present action is the same as that in Case T-540/08 Esso and Others v Commission.
   In support of its claims, the applicants submit that, in the first instance, it has not been established that Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades S.A. (Rylesa) was involved in certain identified conduct which has been dealt with on an individual basis for the purposes of imposing a penalty. In particular, the Decision did not produce sufficient evidence to show that Rylesa took part in an agreement to share customers and markets.
   Nor does the Decision take account of the fact that the purpose of the technical meetings was not to share customers and markets. Such practices, had they existed, would have occurred, as some of the companies to which the Decision was addressed have recognised, within the bilateral and multilateral contacts at the fringes of the technical meetings. However, in the contested Decision it is considered unnecessary to investigate such bilateral and multilateral contacts, as a result of which the applicants may not be deemed party to the infringement identified by the Decision. In any event, the Decision does not explain why Rylesa is deemed liable for such conduct while at the same time it clears other companies that were present at the technical meetings put forward as evidence of such conduct.
   The applicants also contest the criteria used by the Commission to determine the turnover of the relevant products and therefore set the penalty applicable. First, the Decision does not precisely define the products concerned by the infringement. Second, in accordance with the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines, applicable to the present case, fines are to be set according to the value of the sales made by a company during the last full business year of its participation in an infringement. However, in the present case, the Commission has departed from that general rule, and has calculated the value of the fine by reference to Rylesa's average sales volume between 2001 and 2003. At no point did the Commission provide any reasons to justify why, in the case of Rylesa, it disregarded the rules it set itself in the Guidelines in order to apply a criterion (the average sales value between the years 2001 and 2003), which, moreover, substantially prejudices Rylesa. The value of sales to be taken into account is ultimately that generated in 2003, as the Decision itself states, since that is the last full year in which the Commission itself alleges that Rylesa participated in the infringement.
   In the Decision, the Commission considers that any infringement by Rylesa was terminated by 4 August 2004. However, there is not the slightest evidence that any infringement by Rylesa persisted until that date. In particular, Rylesa is not a party to the agreements or practices adopted in the technical meetings which took place in the first half of 2004. Any infringement must be therefore be deemed to have terminated by January 2004 or May 2004 at the latest.
   Lastly, the contested Decision disregards the considerable evidence put forward in the administrative procedure, in which it was proved that Rylesa is a completely autonomous entity from its parent company, Repsol Petróleo S.A. In any event, case-law does not allow the Commission to extend liability for an infringement committed by a company to the whole of the group of which it forms part, which is why the liability of Repsol YPF S.A. is not established.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2005 in Case T-169/02 Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a bottle of beer including the verbal element ‘negra modelo’ — Earlier national figurative mark Modelo — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/25

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 February 2005
   in Case T-169/02 Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a bottle of beer including the verbal element ‘negra modelo’ - Earlier national figurative mark Modelo - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 93/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-169/02: Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV, established in Mexico, represented by C. Lema Devesa and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Crespo Carrillo and I. de Medrano Caballero), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, and intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Modelo Continente Hipermercados, SA, established in Senhora da Hora (Portugal), represented by N. Cruz, J. Pimenta and T. Colaço Dias, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2002 (Cases R 536/2001-3 and R 674/2001-3), concerning opposition proceedings between Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV and Modelo Continente Hipermercados, SA — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 23 March 1995 in Case C-458/93: criminal proceedings against Mostafa Saddik (Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 119/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13 . 5 . 95
 of State for the Home Department, ex-parte Evans Medical                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd, intervener: Generics (UK ) Ltd                                   of 30 March 1995
— on the interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and 234 of
the EEC Treaty and Council Directive 77/62/EEC of                      in Case C-65/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the
21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award                                         European Union (*)
of public supply contracts (2 ), as amended by Council                  (Article 43 of the EEC Treaty — Obligation to consult the
Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( 3 ) — the Court,                                              Parliament)
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.                                             ( 95/C 119/03 )
 Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn (Presidents of
 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray                                (Language ofthe case: French)
 ( Rapporteur ) and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 1 995 , in which                     published in the European Court Reports)
it ruled as follows :
                                                                       In Case C-65/93 : European Parliament (Agents: Christian
                                                                       Pennera, Kieran Bradley and Jorge Campinos ) against the
                                                                       Council of the European Union (Agents: Jean-Claude Piris
1 . Article 30 of the EEC Treaty applies to a national
      practice prohibiting importation of narcotic drugs               and Yves Crétien), supported by the United Kingdom of
      covered by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents : John E. Collins
      Drugs and marketable under that Convention;                      of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Peter Duffy,
                                                                       Barrister) — application for the annulment of Council
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 3917/92 of 21 December 1992
                                                                       extending into 1993 the application of Regulations ( EEC )
2. Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as                No 3831/90, ( EEC ) No 3832/90, ( EEC ) No 3833/90, ( EEC )
      requiring a Member State to ensure that this provision           No 3834/90, ( EEC ) No 3835/90 and ( EEC ) No 3900/91
      is fully effective by disapplying a national practice            applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of
      contrary to it unless that practice is necessary in order        certain products originating in developing countries, and
      for the Member State concerned to comply with                    adding to the list of beneficiaries of such preferences (2 ) —
      obligations towards non-member States laid down in an            the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
      agreement concluded prior to entry into force of the             F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and
      Treaty or to accession by that Member State;                     C. Gulmann ( Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, C. N.
                                                                       Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
                                                                       Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Tesauro;
                                                                       Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
3 , a national practice of refusing licences for importation           Administrator, gave a judgment on 30 March 1 995 , the
      of drugs from another Member State is not covered by             operative part of which is as follows :
      the derogation provided for in Article 36 of the EEC
      Treaty if it is based on the need to safeguard an                1 , the application is dismissed;
      undertaking's survival but that derogation may apply to
      it ifprotection ofthe health and life ofhumans requires a        2 . the European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs,
      reliable supply of drugs for essential medical purposes                save for those of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
      to be safeguarded and that objective cannot be                         and Northern Ireland, which is ordered to bear its own
      achieved as effectively by measures less restrictive of                costs .
      intra-Community trade;
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 105 , 16 . 4 . 1993 .
                                                                       (2) OJ No L 396, 31 . 12. 1992, p. 1 .
4. Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
      coordinating procedures for the award of public
      supply contracts, as amended by Council Directive
      88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988, is to be interpreted as                               ORDER OF THE COURT
      authorizing the bodies covered by that Directive which
                                                                                of 23 March 1995
      wish to obtain diamorphine to award the contract on the
      basis of the tendering undertakings ' ability to provide                in Case C-458/93 : criminal proceedings against
      reliable and continuous supplies to the Member State                                     Mostafa Saddik ( l )
      concerned.
                                                                                (Inadmissibility)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/04 )
t 1 ) OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 .                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
(2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 127, 20 . 5 . 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-458/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale, Rome for a
 ---pagebreak---  13 . 5 . 95         IEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/3
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello di
court against Mostafa Saddik on the interpretation of                 Ancona, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 19 October
Articles 3 , 9, 30, 37, 85 , 86, 87, 88 and 90 of the EC Treaty       1994 in the case of Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
— the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                                         Stato v. Foods Import srl
President, F. A. Schockweiler, P.J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann                                      (Case C-38/95 )
and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini,
C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,                                         ( 95/C 119/06 )
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
23 March 1995 in which it ordered :
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Civil Section of
                                                                      the Corte di Appello ( Court of Appeal ), Ancona, of
                                                                      19 October 1994, which was received at the Court Registry
the reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the               on 16 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Pretura Circondariale, Rome by order of 24 November                   Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import
1993 is inadmissible.                                                 srl on the following questions :
(!) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                      1 . Is the list given in Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
                                                                            3796/81 of 29 December 1981 ( l ) ( and repeated in
                                                                            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3333/83 of 4 November
                                                                            1983 ( 2 ), Annex VI to which reproduces Chapter 3 of
                                                                            the Common Customs Tariff in which cod appears
                                                                            under heading No 03.02 A.I and fillets of cod under
                                                                            heading No 03.02 A.II, supplemented by the mention
                                                                             'Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac ',
                                                                            exhaustive or illustrative and, accordingly, is the dried
                                                                            cod scientifically classified as 'Molva ' covered by that
Appeal brought by Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa),                     list ?
Makupesca SA and Recursos Marinos SA against the order
made by the President of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 January 1995 in Joined Cases
T-231/94 R, T-232/94 R and T-234/94 R between                         2. If the Court holds that list to be exhaustive, does
Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa ), Makupesca SA                         Article 20 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3796/81 of
and Recursos Marinos SA and Commission of the European                      29 December 1981 , suspending certain Common
                            Communities                                     Customs Tariff duties, apply only to the three subspecies
                        ( Case C-12/95 P)                                   of cod referred to in Question 1 ('Gadus morrhua,
                                                                            Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac ') to the exclusion of
                           ( 95/C 119/05 )
                                                                            other subspecies such as 'Molva '}
An appeal against the order made by the President of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                3 . In any event, must Article 5 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
16 January 1995 in Joined Cases T-231/94 R, T-232/94 R                      ( EEC ) No 1697/79 (3 ) of 24 July 1979 , giving debtors
and T-234/94 R between Transacciones Maritimas SA                           the right (see the Court's judgment in Case 314/85
(Tramasa ), Makupesca SA and Recursos Marinos SA and                        Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Liibeck-Ost [ 1987]
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          ECR 4199 ) to benefit from the fact that the competent
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by                  authorities may refrain from taking action for the
Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa ), Makupesca SA and                     post-clearance recovery of duties, be applied also in the
Recursos Marinos SA, represented by Santiago Martinez                       present case in which the customs authorities failed to
Lage, Rafael Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vfas Alonso,                  collect the relevant duties on account of an error, having
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in                           regard also to the conduct of the alleged debtor who had
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                          observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in
Rue .                                                                       force as far as his customs declaration was concerned ?
By order of the President of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities of 7 March 1995, the appeal has                  f 1 ) OJ No L 379 , 31 . 12 . 1981 , p . 1 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ No L 313 , 14 . 11 . 1983 , p . 1 .
been dismissed and the appellants have been ordered to pay            (3 ) OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979, p. 1 .       '
the costs in their entirety.


title: Case C-268/05 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 February 2006 — Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communitites (Appeal — Officials — Rules on the levels, body, and procedures of consultation agreed between the majority of trade unions and staff associations and the Commission — Exclusion of the union Action et Défense — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/1

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 February 2006 — Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communitites
   (Case C-268/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Rules on the levels, body, and procedures of consultation agreed between the majority of trade unions and staff associations and the Commission - Exclusion of the union ‘Action et Défense’ - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 249/02)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-191/02 Lebedef v Commission, dismissing the action for annulment of the Commission's decision to repudiate the Agreement of 20 September 1974 on Relations between the Commission and the Trade Unions and Staff Associations, and to adopt again the Operational Rules on the consultation levels, the consultation body and related procedures agreed between the Commission and the majority of trade unions and staff associations on 19 January 2000, which had been annulled by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 15 November 2001, in so far as they excluded the union ‘Action et Défense’ from the consultation body.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Lebedef is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 01.10.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea - Sezione Distaccata di Strambino by order of that court of 14 December 1995 in the criminal proceedings against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data (Case C-2/96)

text:
17. 2 . 96                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 46/13
       avoiding the rearing of those calves in the veal crate            Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Ivrea —
       systems in Member States B ?                                      Sezione Distaccata di Strambino ( Strambino Section) of
                                                                         14 December 1995 , which was received at the Court
2 . If the effect of provisions of the Directive, if valid, would        Registry on 3 January 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the
       be to require the answer 'no ' to be given to question 1 ,        criminal proceedings against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo
       are those provisions valid ?                                      Data on the following questions :
( J ) Council Decision 78/923/EEC of 19 June 1978 concerning the
      conclusion of the European Convention for the protection of        1 . May the national laws on employment procurement and
      animals kept for farming purposes (OJ No L 323 , 17. 11 . 1978,          temporary work, which relate to matters of public
      p. 12 ).                                                                 policy because their purpose is to protect the interests of
( 2 ) Council Directive 91 /629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying                 workers and of the national economy, be considered as
      down minimum standards for the protection of calves ( OJ No              instances of the exercise of official authority within the
      L 340 , 11 . 12 . 1991 , p. 28 ).                                        meaning of the combined provisions of Articles 66 and
                                                                               55 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                         2 . May the Community rules relied upon in the parties'
                                                                               defence, in the absence of specific implementing
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Ivrea — Sezione Distaccata di Strambino                       provisions in that area, be considered directly applicable
                                                                               and do they permit any person subject to public or
by order of that court of 14 December 1995 in the criminal
                                                                               private law to pursue, without specific supervision or
     proceedings against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data
                                                                               authorization, any activity as an intermediary between
                              (Case C-2/96 )                                   supply and demand on the employment market and/or
                               ( 96/C 46/24 )                                  as provider of labour on a temporary basis for third
                                                                               persons, in the event that a Member State is not able
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         through its own administrative apparatus fully to meet
European Communities by order of the Pretura                                   the demand for services on the labour market ?
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
            ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)                      ( OJ, English Special Edition 1959—1962, p. 87) — the
                                                                         Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, Extended
                           of 9 January 1996                             Composition ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, President,
in Case T-575/93 Casper Koelman v. Commission of the                     R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi,
                      European Communities (')                           Judges, B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
 (Regulation No 17— Rejection ofa complaint — Statement                  judgment on 9 January 1996 , in which it:
                     of reasons — National court)
                               ( 96/C 46/25 )
                                                                         1 . dismisses the applicant's claims as inadmissible in so far
                                                                               as they are not for annulment of the Commission 's
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              Decision of 14 October 1993 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                               complaint or for compensation;
In Case T-575/93 : Casper Koelman, resident in Brussels,                 2 . dismisses the remainder of the claims for annulment and
represented by Michel Molitor, Lambert Dupong, Pierre                          for compensation as unfounded;
Feltgen and Lucy Dupong, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Michel Molitor, 14A Rue des Bains, versus Commission of                  3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of
the European Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber),                          the intervener.
supported by Buma, established in Amstelveen
 (Netherlands), represented by Cornelis van Rij and Eduard
A. P. Engels, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for                  t 1 ) OJ No C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Guy Harles,
 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt — applications concerning the
 Commission Decision of 14 October 1993 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint submitted under Article 3 (2 ) of
 Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 : First


title: Case C-500/08: Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-500/08) (1)

   2009/C 220/61

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case C-185/11: Action brought on 18 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/20

         Action brought on 18 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-185/11)
   2011/C 269/37
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K.-Ph. Wojcik, M. Žebre and N. Yerrell, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to implement, correctly and fully, in its own legal order Council Directives 73/239/EEC (1) and 92/49/EEC, (2) the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(3) of Directive 73/239/EEC and Articles 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/EEC, and its obligations under Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for the transposition of Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC expired on 1 May 2004.

      (1)  OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1.


title: Case T-571/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)
   (Case T-571/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 125/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-135/00: Action brought on 19 May 2000 by Carmelo Morello against Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.7.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 211/23
— order the Commission to draw up corrected pay slips as                — In the alternative, annul the Commission Decision in so
    from October 1999 and to pay default interest the                        far as the Commission wrongly used as the basis of its
    increased amounts; and                                                   calculation of the demand for repayment a total amount
                                                                             of aid approved of DEM 1 246 900 000 (less an adjust-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     ment for DEM 10 500 000 competition aid not granted
                                                                             and DEM 27000 000 aid on closure) instead of the
                                                                             total amount of the operating aid actually granted (DEM
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              230 984 000) with previous demands for repayment (DEM
                                                                             83 000 000) being taken into account;
The applicant challenges the appointing authority’s refusal,
which took the form of failure to reply, to transfer 35 % of his        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
net salary to the account opened by him in the United
Kingdom in order to meet the university education costs of his
sons. The appointing authority has only acceded to the
applicant’s request to the extent of transferring 19 % of his           Pleas in law and main arguments
salary to the abovementioned account.
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the same
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges that the following      as in Case T-227/99 (2) with the exception of the argument
have been infringed:                                                    concerning the irregular composition of the Commission.
— Article 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regula-
    tions and additional provisions;                                    (1) OJ L 120, 20.5.2000, p. 12.
                                                                        (2) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000, p. 27.
— the principle of proportionality,
— the principle of equal treatment,
— the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationa-
    lity.
The applicant also alleges misuse of powers and failure to
observe the obligation to state the grounds on which measures           Action brought on 19 May 2000 by Carmelo Morello
are taken.                                                                  against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-135/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/49)
Action brought on 18 May 2000 by Kværner Warnow
Werft GmbH against the Commission of the European                                          (Language of the case: French)
                         Communities
                        (Case T-134/00)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 19 May
                                                                        2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by
                        (2000/C 211/48)                                 Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels
                                                                        Bar.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              — Annul the Commission decision to appoint another official
European Communities on 18 May 2000 by Kværner Warnow                        to post COM/069/99 IV/C1 ‘Telecommunications and
Werft GmbH of Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany, represented                       post, coordination of the information society’, being an
by Dr Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick                   A3 Head of Unit post;
Heller Löber, Brussels.
                                                                        — Annul the Commission decision not to accept the appli-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  cant’s application for post COM/069/99 IV/C1 ‘Telecom-
                                                                             munications and Post, coordination of the information
— Annul Commission Decision C (2000) 516 fin. of                             society’, being an A3 Head of Unit post, and all the
    15 February 2000 on aid granted by Germany to Kværner                    measures preparatory to that decision which themselves
    Warnow Werft GmbH (1),                                                   proved to be improper;
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.7.2000
— Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
     greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
     of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for the               — Annul the Commission decision to appoint another official
     non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result                to post COM/070/99 IV/2 ‘Automobiles, other means of
     of the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled                  transport and related mechanical construction’, being an
     by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual               A5 - A4 Head of Unit post;
     file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
     was kept regarding his professional future;                          — Annul the Commission decision not to accept the applican-
                                                                              t’s application for post COM/070/99 IV/2 ‘Automobiles,
— Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such                       other means of transport and related mechanical construc-
     greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course                 tion’, being an A5 - A4 Head of Unit post, and all the
     of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for his                   measures preparatory to that decision which themselves
     being rejected for that vacant post and, therefore, the loss             proved to be improper;
     of any chance of promotion;
                                                                          — Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                       greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
                                                                              of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for the
                                                                              non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result
Contentions and principal arguments                                           of the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled
                                                                              by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual
                                                                              file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
The applicant contests the rejection by the appointing auth-
                                                                              was kept regarding his professional future;
ority of his application for a post of Head of Unit, Grade A 3.
                                                                          — Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement:                 greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
                                                                              of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for his
— of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of the obligation                being rejected for that vacant post and, therefore, the loss
     to state reasons;                                                        of any chance of promotion;
— of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                                 — Order the defendant to pay the costs.
— of the promotion procedure and of the principle of equal
     treatment;                                                           Contentions and principal arguments
— of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                          are the same as those relied on in Case T-135/00 Morello v
The applicant also claims that the contested decision is vitiated         Commission.
by a manifest error of assessment and misuse of power.
Action brought on 19 May 2000 by Carmelo Morello                          Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Sylvia Haupt against
    against Commission of the European Communities                               the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-136/00)                                                          (Case T-143/00)
                         (2000/C 211/50)                                                          (2000/C 211/51)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 19 May             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by             European Communities on 25 May 2000 by Sylvia Haupt,
Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels             residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
Bar.                                                                      Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.


title: Case T-848/14 P: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Reports — Promotion — 2006 evaluation and assessment exercises — Psychological harassment — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/39

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-848/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Reports - Promotion - 2006 evaluation and assessment exercises - Psychological harassment - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 381/46)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and E. Raimond, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 November 2014 in De Nicola v EIB (F-55/08 RENV, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:244), and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case T-292/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014  — Cemex and Others v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cemex and Others v Commission
   (Case T-292/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))
   2014/C 135/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Cemex SAB. De CV (Monterrey, Mexico); New Sunward Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Cemex España, SA (Madrid, Spain); Cemex Deutschland AG (Ratingen, Germany); Cemex UK (Egham, United Kingdom); Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic); Cemex France Gestion (Rungis, France); Cemex Austria AG (Langenzersdorf, Austria) (represented by: M. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez, H. González Durántez and B. Martínez Corral, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, F. Castilla Contreras and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2360 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cemex SAB. De CV, New Sunward Holding BV, Cemex España, SA, Cemex Deutschland AG, Cemex UK, Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o., Cemex France Gestion and Cemex Austria AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-35/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014  — Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags market — Single and continuous infringement)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) v European Commission
   (Case C-35/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags market - Single and continuous infringement))
   2014/C 253/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) (represented by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez, M. Troncoso Ferrer and E. Abril Fernández, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-76/06 ASPLA v Commission dismissing an application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on ASPLA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) to pay the costs of this appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case C-495/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — The Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — The Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-495/12)
   2013/C 32/04
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               When applying the mandatory provisions of Article 134 to the provisions of Article 132(1)(m) of the Principal VAT Directive (1) in the circumstances of a body accepted to be a non-profit-making organisation making supplies of the right to play golf, what supplies, if any constitute ‘the transactions exempted’?

               2.

               Is it legitimate to restrict exemption under Article 132(1)(m) by reference to whether the services of granting a right to play golf are made to a member of the non-profit-making organisation ?

               3.

               Are the provisions of Article 134 to be interpreted as restricting exemption only to supplies which are ‘closely linked’ (in the sense of peripheral) to the ‘transactions exempted’ or to any supply falling within Article 132(1)(m)?

               4.

               In circumstances where the non-profit-making organisation by reference to its publicly stated aims, regularly and consistently permits non-members to play golf, what is the interpretation to be placed on the ‘basic purpose’ of making the charge to non-members?

               5.

               For the purposes of Article 134(b) to what must the ‘additional income’ be additional?

               6.

               If income derived from providing access to sporting facilities to non-members is not to be treated as ‘additional income’ for the purposes of Article 134(b), does Article 133(d) permit a Member State to exclude such income from exemption if it is likely to cause distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT, whilst not at the same time withdrawing the exemption form income derived from providing membership to members of the same non-profit-making organizations if the members’ subscriptions are themselves likely to cause at least some distortion of competition?

               7.

               In particular, is it necessary for any condition implemented under Article 133(d) to apply to all services supplied by the non-profit-making organisation otherwise falling within the exemption or is it permissible to allow a partial restriction i.e. permitting exemption for the supply of the right to play golf to members but not to non-members where both membership and non-membership supplies are in competition with commercial organisations?

               8.

               What, if any, is the difference in requirement between Article 133(d) which requires a likely ‘distortion of competition’ and that in 134(b) which envisages only the existence of direct competition?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
   OJ L 347, p. 1


title: Case T-192/08: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2011 — Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council (Dumping — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan and Russia — Causal link — Community interest — Lack of cooperation — Facts available — Market economy treatment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2011 — Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council
   (Case T-192/08) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan and Russia - Causal link - Community interest - Lack of cooperation - Facts available - Market economy treatment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 355/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO (Aktobe, Kazakhstan) and ENRC Marketing AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: initially L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, and subsequently by A. Willems and S. de Knop, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially J.-P. Hix and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, and subsequently by G. Berrisch, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents), and Euroalliages (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven and N. McNelis, lawyers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO and ENRC Marketing AG to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Euroalliages;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-286/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/38

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik v Commission
   (Case T-286/14)
   2014/C 223/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik GmbH (Brensbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU against the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the support for renewable electricity and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), in so far as it applies to the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In this context, the applicant states that energy-intensive users are not favoured by the arrangement. The special compensation regime is, instead, compensation for exceptional costs which affect the applicant and comparable users to a special degree in the context of the support for renewable electricity, and is intended to re-establish the competitiveness of energy-intensive users who were initially considerably adversely affected by the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           In addition, the applicant claims that the special compensation regime does not constitute a measure granted ‘by a Member State or through State resources’. The applicant states, in this context, that the EEG-surcharge is not a State resource and that even a waiver of those resources by the special compensation regime cannot therefore constitute a measure granted through State resources.

                           —

                           The EEG-surcharge is not collected, administered or even allocated by the State or by a public or private institution nominated or established by the State. Instead, the EEG-surcharge can be directly collected by the transmission system operators on the basis of a corresponding entitlement under civil law. The EEG-surcharge does not benefit the State budget, and consequently the special compensation regime in no way indirectly or directly reduces State revenue.

                           —

                           The EEG-resources are also not available to State authorities. There is also no public control over the EEG-resources, such as by the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Federal Office of Economics and Export Control, BAFA) or the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency).


title: Case T-13/13: Action brought on 3 January 2013 — MasterCard International/OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/19

         Action brought on 3 January 2013 — MasterCard International/OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)
   (Case T-13/13)
   2013/C 86/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: N. Bolter and C. Sawdy, solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sheetal Nehra (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision under Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR;

               —

               Uphold the applicant’s opposition filed against the respondent’s mark in its entirety;

               —

               In the alternative, uphold the applicant’s opposition in respect of such services for which it is found that a likelihood of confusion exists and/or for such services where it is determined there exists a risk of the application mark taking unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the applicant’s mark; and

               —

               Order the respondent to pay the cost of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in blue, black and white containing the word element ‘surfpin’ and a device of three overlapping circles for services in classes 36 — Community trade mark application No 8 368 862

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks in different colours containing a device of overlapping circles and some of them the word elements ‘MasterCard Worldwide’ or ‘MasterCard’ — Community trade mark registration No 5 198 585, Community trade mark registration No 5 198 494, UK trade mark registration No 2 425 471, UK trade mark registration No 2 429 669, Community trade mark registration No 5 646 261, Community trade mark registration No 761 221, Community trade mark registration No 5 646 492 and Community trade mark registration No 5 646 609 for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (4) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens, by judgment of that court of 30 November 1994 in the case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v. Kartonpak AE (Case C-104/95)

text:
  !. 7 . 95            I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 174/3
( f) Does the levying on an importer acting in good faith of                  claims commission was entered into in that place within
        the duties payable on goods in respect of which an                    the agent's geographical area .
        exporter has committed a customs offence, in which the
        importer was in no way involved , infringe the principles
        of justice, prohibition of enrichment at the expense of
        others, proportionality, legal certainty and good
        faith ?
                                                                         Appeal brought on 31 March 1995 by the Bundesverband
(g ) Since the customs authorities in the country of                     der Bilanzbuchhalter against the judgment delivered on
        exportation neglected to carry out a prior inspection of         23 January 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
        the exporter 's warehouses before issuing the-movement           First Instance of the European Communities in Case
        certificates EUR.l , and since the Portuguese importer           T-84/94 between the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter
        cannot remedy the situation arising from such                        and the Commission of the European Communities
        negligence , does that situation not constitute a case of                              ( Case C-107/95 P )
        force majeure for the importer, precluding the
                                                                                95 /C 174/05 )
        procedure for post-clearance recovery commenced
        against it ?
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January
(') OJ No L 175 , 1 . 7. 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                         1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
( 2 ) OJ No L .302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .                            of the European Communities in Case T-84/94 between the
(') 1 1993 | ECR , p . 1-6381 .                                          Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter and the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 1 March
                                                                         1995 by the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter,
                                                                         represented by Joachim A. Miiller, Rechtsanwalt, Munich,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                         of Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles
Protodikio , Athens , by judgment of that court of                       The appellant claims that the Court should :
30 November 1994 in the case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v.
                            Kartonpak AE                                 set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                          ( Case C-104/95 )                              23 January 1995 in Case T-84/94 (').
                            ( 95 /C 174/04 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Infringement of the provisions of the EC Treaty , in
European Communities by a judgment of the Polimeles                      particular Articles 5 , 59 , 86 and 90 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ), and
Protodikio ( Court of First Instance , several judges ), Athens ,        misinterpretation of Articles 155 and 169 of the EC Treaty .
of 30 November 1994 , which was received at the Court
                                                                         Contrary to the assumption made in the contested
Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the              judgment, an action against a refusal to bring proceedings
case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v. Kartonpak AE pending                    under Article 1 69 or Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty must in
before it on the following questions :                                   any event be admissible where it is pleaded that the refusal is
                                                                         based on a defective investigation into the facts or the
 1 . Where the commercial agent is responsible for a specific            assessment by the Commission in the case in point is reduced
      geographical area , is he entitled to commission on                to naught.
       transactions entered into without his involvement at any
       stage and irrespective of whether he himself had found            (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 , p . 11 .
       the customers in question, or is he so entitled only on
       transactions concluded in his area of activity as a result
       of his intervention with customers which he himself has
       found ?
2 . What is the meaning to be attached to the term                       Action brought on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of
       'customer belonging ' to that area ? In particular where             Germany against the Council of the European Union
       the customer is a company whose seat is located in a                                       ( Case C-122/95 )
       different place from that in which its managerial and
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/06 )
       commercial activity is carried on , does the word
       ' belonging' refer to the company's seat or to the place in
       which its commercial activity is actually carried on              An action against the Council of the European Union was
       and/or its works or other establishments are located ,            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       where the transaction in respect of which commission is           Communities on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of
       sought was to supply those works or establishments and            Germany, represented by Ernst Roder and Berndt Kloke,
       the relevant transaction in respect of which the agent            Federal Ministry of Economics, Bonn.


title: Case C-61/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (Appeal — Civil aviation — Application for approval of flight conditions presented — Decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency — Rejection of an application — Compulsory preliminary administrative procedure — Possibility of an action before the court of the Union European — Role of the court — Adoption of measures of organisation of procedure — Obligation — Complex technical assessments)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
   (Case C-61/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil aviation - Application for approval of flight conditions presented - Decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency - Rejection of an application - Compulsory preliminary administrative procedure - Possibility of an action before the court of the Union European - Role of the court - Adoption of measures of organisation of procedure - Obligation - Complex technical assessments))
   (2016/C 106/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: T. Kittner, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: T. Masing, lawyer)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 24 January 1995 in Case C-359/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (Tender notices for public supply contracts - Review procedure - Notification - Technical specifications)

text:
4.3.95                [JN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 54/5
2. consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of            said directives and Articles 5 and 1 89 of the EC Treaty — the
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 2 (3) of         Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,
     Regulation (EEC) No 2237/85.                                      President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                       J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; P. Leger,
Case C-353/93                                                          Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                       on 19 January 1995, in which it:
1 . Article 3 (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     No 1626/85 of 14 June 1985 on protective measures                 1 . declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     applicable to imports of certain Morello cherries is to be              period the laws, regulations and administrative
     interpreted as meaning that if the competent authorities                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     have doubts as to whether the import price declared is                   91 /687/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending Directives
     the true one, they make take all necessary measures to                   64/432/EEC, 72/461 /EEC and 80/215/EEC as regards
     estasblish that price;                                                   certain measures relating to swine-fever and with
                                                                              Council Directive 91 /688/EEC of 11 December 1991
2. consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of                   amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3 (3) of                veterinary inspection problems upon importation of
     Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85;                                             bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat
3 . Article 3 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85 is to be                     or meat products from third countries the Kingdom of
     interpreted as meaning that the phrase 'the exporter in                  Belgium has failed to fulfil the obligations regarding
     the country in which the products originated' refers                     their transposition imposed on it by Article 4 of
     exclusively to an exporter whose undertaking is                          Directive 91 /687/EEC and Article 2 of Directive
     established in the country of origin of the goods.                       91 /688/EEC;
(!) OJ No C 232, 28 . 8 . 1993 .                                       2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(2 ) OJ No L 209, 6 . 8 . 1985 , p. 24 .
(3 ) OJ No L 49, 27. 2 . 1986, p. 1 .                                  (M OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
(4 ) OJ No  L  99, 16 . 4 . 1988, p . 12 .                             (2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 16 .
(5)  OJ No  L  290, 19 . 10 . 1982, p . 28                              (3 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 18 .
(6 ) OJ No  L  73 , 21 . 3 . 1977, p. 1 .
( 7) OJ No  L  156, 15 . 6 . 1985 , p. 13 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 24 January 1995
                         of 19 January 1995                            in Case C-359/93: Commission of the                   European
in    Case     C-66/94: Commission of the              European                Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands ( ! )
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( x )                      (Tender notices for public supply contracts — Review
(Failure by a Member State to fulfilits obligations — Failure               procedure — Notification — Technical specifications)
                      to transpose a directive)                                                    ( 95/C 54/08 )
                              ( 95/C 54/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                 (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                  published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-66/94: Commission of the European                             In Case C-359/93 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gerard Rozet) v. Kingdom of Belgium                 Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) v. Kingdom of the
(Agent: Jan Devadder) — application for a declaration that              Netherlands (Agents: J. W. de Zwaan and T. Heukels ) —
by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and                application for a declaration that the Kingdom of the
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council              Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
Directive 91/687/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending                       Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating
Directives 64/432/EEC, 72/461/EEC and 80/215/EEC as                     procedures for the award of public supply contracts (2 ), as
regards certain measures relating to swine-fever (2) and with           amended by Council Directives 80/767/EEC ( 3 ) and
Council Directive 91 /688/EEC of 11 December 1991                       88/295/EEC (4), and also under Article 30 of the EEC
amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and veterinary                  Treaty, — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and               President, P. J. G. Kapteyn (President of Chamber), G. F.
caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products                  Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
from third countries (3 ) and/or by failing to communicate              (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Tesauro: Advocate
them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
to fulfil its obligations under the penultimate articles of the         24 January 1995 , in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/6               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
1 . declared that, by failing to indicate in the contract notice      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
     at issue the persons authorized to be present at the             Verwaltungsgericht, Ansbach, by an order of that court of
     opening of tenders and the date, time and place of               23 November 1994 in the administrative law case of Hellen
     opening, and by introducing into the general terms and                            Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern
     conditions a technical specification defined by reference                                   Case C-l/95 )
     to a product of a specific make, the Kingdom of the
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                      ( 95/C 54/10 )
     Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     coordinating procedures for the award of public supply           European Communities by an order of the 12th Chamber of
     contracts, as amended by Council Directives                      the      Bayerisches          Verwaltungsgericht     (Bavarian
     80/767/EEC       and      88/295/EEC,   and also     under       Administrative Court) of 23 November 1994, which was
     Article 30 of the Treaty;                                        received at the Court Registry on 5 January 1995 , for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of Hellen
2. ordered the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                  Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern, on the following questions:
     costs.
                                                                      1 . Is Article 119 of the EEC Treaty applicable to
                                                                          officials ?
(!) OJ No C 238 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .
(2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .                               2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is there
(3 ) OJ No L 215, 18 . 8 . 1980, p. 1 .                                   an infringement of Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and of
(4) OJ No L 127, 20. 5. 1988, p. 1 .                                      Council Directive 75/117/EEC (.*) in the form of indirect
                                                                          discrimination against women where the second
                                                                          sentence of section 13 (2) of the Laufbahnverordnung
                                                                          ( Career on regulations, 'LBV') provides that, for the
                                                                          purpose of calculating the periods of services of officials,
                                                                          periods of employment involving working hours of at
                                                                          least one-half to two-thirds of normal working hours are
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                      counted only as two-thirds of normal working
                       of 10 January 1995                                 hours ?
in Case C-l/94 S-A: Dupret SA v. Commission of the                    3 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is there
                  European Communities ( l )                              an infringement of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) in
(Application for authorization to serve a garnishee order on              the form of indirect discrimination against women in
       the Commission of the European Communities)                        regard to access to career progression (promotion),
                            ( 95/C 54/09 )                                where the second sentence of section 13 (2 ) of the LBV
                                                                          provides that, for the purpose of calculating the periods
                                                                          of service of officials, periods of employment involving
               (Language of the case: French)                             working hours of at least one-half of two-thirds of
                                                                          normal working hours are counted only as two-thirds of
In Case 1/94 SA: Dupret SA, a company governed by Belgian                 normal working hours ?
law which is in liquidation, represented by Georges-Albert            (!) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19.
Dal, of the Bussels Bar, receiver, 18 Rue de l'Aurore, 1050           (2) OJ No L 39, 14. 2 . 1976, p. 40.
Brussels, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Van Raepenbusch) — application
for authorization to serve a garnishee order on the
Commission of the European Communities — the Court,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.                Dortmund by order of that court of 27 December 1994 in
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann (Presidents of                    the case of Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho                                       (Case C-3/95 )
de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur),
                                                                                ( 95/C 54/11 )
A. M. La Pergola and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
10 January 1995, the operative part of which is as                    European Communities by order of the Ninth Civil
follows :
                                                                      Chamber of the Landgericht ( Regional Court) Dortmund of
                                                                      27 December 1994, which was received at the Court
1 . There is no need to give a decision on the                        Registry on 1 1 January 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
     application;                                                     case of Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker on the following
                                                                      questions:
2. each party is to bear its own costs.                               does Article 59 of the EEC Treaty preclude a national rule
                                                                      which prohibits an undertaking established in another
(!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994.                                       Member State from securing judicial recovery of foreign
                                                                      debts on the ground that this activity is reserved under the
                                                                      national rule for persons to whom a special official licence
                                                                      has been issued for that purpose ?