title: Action brought on 3 July 1995 by the Council of the European Union against the European Parliament (Case C-230/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 208 / 17
activity carried out as a self-employed person ( travailleur             3 July 1995 by the Council of the European Union,
independant) by a national of a Member State ?                           represented by Jean-Paul Jacque, Director of the Legal
                                                                         Service, and Felix Van Craeyenest and Yves Cretien, Legal
(!) OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .                                Advisors , acting as Agents , with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Bruno Eynard , European
                                                                         Investment Bank, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
of the French Republic by judgment of 13 June 1995 in the
      case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et Cie                The applicant claims that the Court should :
                          ( Case C-222/95 )
                             ( 95 /C 208/34 )                            1 . annul the act of the President of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Parliament of 26 April 1 995 declaring the final adoption
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de                             of amending and supplementary budget No 1 1995 ;
Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
of the French Republic of 13 June 1995 which was received
at the Court Registry on 26 June 1995 , for a preliminary                2 . consequently, declare that budget, as adopted by the
ruling in the case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et                 European Parliament on the same day, invalid ;
Cie .
The Court of Cassation refers the following question to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities for a                       3 . state that the acts implementing the budget which have
preliminary ruling:                                                           been adopted up until the date when the judgment is
                                                                              delivered are retained in their entirety;
as regards the period preceding the entry into force of
Council Directive 89/646/EEC ( 1 ) of 15 December 1989 on
the coordination of laws , regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the                  4 . order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
business of credit institutions and amending Directive
77/780/EEC ( 2 ), do Articles 59 and 61 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
have to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
requiring a licence in order to supply banking services , in             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
particular in order to grant a mortgage loan, where the bank
concerned is established in another Member State where it
has been granted a licence ?                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         relied on in Case C-41 /95 ('). The action concerns only
 (!) OJ No L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              budgetary headings Bl-500 (Accompanying measures —
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 322 , 17 . 12 . 1977, p . 30 .
                                                                         former system ), Bl-5010 ( Early retirement ) and Bl-5012
                                                                          ( Afforestation ). The Council maintains that the three
                                                                         headings which the Parliament reclassified by voting under
Action brought on 3 July 1995 by the Council of the                      the budgetary procedure for the adoption of ASB No 1 / 1995
        European Union against the European Parliament                   are in fact compulsory expenditure , because those three
                                                                         headings are covered by the agricultural guideline by virtue
                           ( Case C-230/95 )
                                                                         of Community legislative measures .
                              ( 95/C 208/35 )
 An action against the European Parliament was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               (M OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 6 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                     judicial vacation the oath-taking ceremony before the Court
                       judicial year 1994/95                              of Justice for new members of the Court of First Instance
                              ( 95/C 208/36 )                             could not take place until after the judicial vacation and that
                                                                          consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of
                                                                          Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, the third
  At the plenary conference held on 6 July 1995 the Court of              paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of
  First Instance took formal note of the fact that owing to the           Justice, the third paragraph of Article 5 of the EAEC Statute


title: Case C-567/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-567/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 205/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted or notified, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.02.2009.


C 247/12               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12.10.2002
Action brought on 6 September 2002 by the Kingdom of                            cannot possibly be used as a basis on which to assess
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European                          those measures, which were notified in 1995. According
                           Communities                                          to a Commission decision of 11 December 1998 relating
                                                                                to a German fiscal measure and taxation according
                         (Case C-314/02)                                        to tonnage (see: Staatliche Beihilfe No N 396/98 —
                                                                                Deutschland, SG(98) D/11575), there was in December
                         (2002/C 247/20)                                        1998 still no question whatever of port activities being
                                                                                excluded from aid measures within the maritime sector.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       On the contrary, that decision brings (maritime) trans-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                    port, including that of tugs, in foreign ports expressly
Communities on 6 September 2002 by the Kingdom of the                           within the scope covered by the German measures.
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent,                    Should the Commission, when carrying out its task of
with an address for service in The Hague.                                       constant review of existing aid measures, classify such a
                                                                                measure, whether on its own initiative or in response to
The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the Court should:                    a complaint, forthwith and retroactively as a new aid
                                                                                measure, that would be at variance with the system laid
1.    Annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 final of                           down in Article 88 EC and Regulation (EC) No 659/
      19 June 2002 concerning State aid provided by the                         1999.
      Netherlands in favour of the activities of Netherlands tug
                                                                                A claim for repayment as from 12 September 1990 is
      boats in seaports and inland waterways within the EU;
                                                                                contrary to the basis used by the Commission itself in its
2.    In the alternative, annul Article 3 of that Decision;                     investigation and is for that reason contrary to law.
                                                                                The contested decision is also otherwise ambiguous with
3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    regard to its scope. Use of the term ‘inland waterways’
                                                                                rests on the assumption that that term has a Community-
                                                                                wide definition; such, however, is not the case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     Infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
—     Breach of law: the Netherlands Government disputes the
      Commission’s description in the contested decision of the           —     Failure to comply with the obligation to provide reasons.
      aid measures in question as constituting new aid. The
      Commission appears intent on suggesting that the
      Netherlands Government failed to indicate that the
      measures in question (‘tax incentives’ and ‘taxation
      according to tonnage’) could also apply to tug-boat
      services within ports and inland waterways. It is, however,                 Removal from the register of Case C-145/00 ( 1)
      clear from the documents available to the Commission
      that, with regard to tug-boat activities, it is only the                                    (2002/C 247/21)
      formal criterion as to whether a vessel can be treated as
      ‘sea-going’ that is conclusive in determining the scope of
      application of the measures in question. The place where            By order of 17 June 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
      the tug-boat activities are actually performed is irrelevant.       of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered
                                                                          the removal from the register of Case C-145/00: Commission
      The Commission erred in basing its decision as to the
      compatibility of the aid in question on the Community’s             of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
      1997 Guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (OJ
      1997 C 205 of 5 July 1997, p. 5). Those Guidelines                  (1 ) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case C-334/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 12 July 2010 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 12 July 2010 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-334/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Regard being had to Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11.A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive, (1) is a taxable person who makes temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item of his business entitled to deduct the VAT levied on expenditure incurred in respect of permanent alterations carried out exclusively with a view to that use for private purposes?

               2.

               For the purpose of answering this question, does it make any difference whether the taxable person was charged VAT, which he deducted, on the acquisition of the capital item?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-209/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Lahti Energia Oy (Directive 2000/76/EC — Incineration of waste — Incineration plant — Co-incineration plant — Complex comprising a gas plant and a power plant — Incineration in the power plant of non-purified gas produced from the thermal treatment of waste in the gas plant)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Lahti Energia Oy
   (Case C-209/09) (1)

   (Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Incineration plant - Co-incineration plant - Complex comprising a gas plant and a power plant - Incineration in the power plant of non-purified gas produced from the thermal treatment of waste in the gas plant)
   2010/C 100/12
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Party to the main proceedings

   Lahti Energia Oy

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 91) — Complex consisting of a plant producing gas from waste and a power plant whose steam boiler burns the gas produced from the thermal treatment of waste in the gas plant — Combustion in the steam boiler of the power plant of non-purified instead of purified gas

      Operative part of the judgment

   A power plant which uses as an additional fuel, in substitution for fossil fuels used for the most part in its production activities, gas obtained in a gas plant following thermal treatment of waste is to be regarded, jointly with that gas plant, as a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste when the gas in question has not been purified within the gas plant.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case T-584/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/32

         Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO)
   (Case T-584/10)
   2011/C 55/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mustafa Yilmaz (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV (Tlaquepaque, Mexico)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 October 2010 in case R 1162/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      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 ‘TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO’, for goods in class es 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 3975117

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30205053.1 of the word mark ‘MATADOR’ for goods in class 32; International trade mark registration No 792051 of the word mark ‘MATADOR’ for goods in class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion, as the trade marks in question are confusingly similar with regard to the goods for which the applied for trade mark seeks protection.


title: Case C-269/05: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Maritime transport — Harbour dues levied on passenger vessels or cargo vessels — Harbour dues levied on vehicles aboard ferries — Discrimination)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/6

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-269/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Maritime transport - Harbour dues levied on passenger vessels or cargo vessels - Harbour dues levied on vehicles aboard ferries - Discrimination)
   (2007/C 42/10)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1) — Harbour dues levied on passenger vessels or cargo vessels — Lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within national territory — Harbour dues levied on vehicles aboard ferries — Dues not levied on vehicles travelling between ports in national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by maintaining in force:

                           —

                           the harbour dues levied on passenger vessels (including cruise ships) or on cargo vessels when they enter into harbour, berth and anchor in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, applying a lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within Greece as compared with cases where transport is to a destination outside Greece,

                           —

                           harbour dues for the benefit of the harbour funds of the Port Authorities AE, set up by Law No 2932/2001, and of the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, which are levied on vehicles aboard ferries on international routes, while similar dues are not levied on routes between Greek ports,

                           —

                           the right to levy dues on vehicles aboard vehicle ferries with a foreign port destination for the benefit of municipalities and communities,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.


title: Case C-53/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Hessen v Franz Mücksch OHG (Environment — Directive 96/82/EC — Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances — Prevention — Appropriate distances between areas of public use and establishments where large quantities of dangerous substances are present)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Hessen v Franz Mücksch OHG
   (Case C-53/10) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 96/82/EC - Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Prevention - Appropriate distances between areas of public use and establishments where large quantities of dangerous substances are present)
   2011/C 319/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Hessen

      Defendant: Franz Mücksch OHG

      Intervener: Merck KGaA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (OJ 2008 L 311, p. 1) — Prevention of major accidents — Extent of the obligation on Member States to ensure that their land-use policies take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between areas of public use and establishments where large quantities of dangerous substances are present — Construction of a garden centre near such an establishment — Existence of several other businesses in the same area at risk

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of Member States to ensure that account is taken of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by that directive and buildings of public use also applies to a public authority, such as the city of Darmstadt (Germany), responsible for issuing planning permissions, even when it has no discretion in the exercise of that prerogative.

               2.

               The obligation set out in Article 12(1) of Directive 96/82, as amended by Directive 2003/105, to take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by that directive and buildings of public use does not require the competent national authorities to prohibit the siting of a building of public use in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings. By contrast, that obligation precludes national legislation that provides that it is mandatory to issue an authorisation for the siting of such a building without the hazards connected with the siting of the building within the perimeter of those distances having been duly assessed at the planning stage or at that of the individual decision.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


C 304/20                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     13.12.2003
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by the Commission                           from the register of Case C-28/02: Commission of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                           European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                          (Case C-460/03)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                          (2003/C 304/29)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 October 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/02 (1)
by X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                                     (2003/C 304/32)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  By order of 14 August 2003 the President of the Court of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of                  from the register of Case C-162/02: Commission of the
      the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
      vehicles (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the directive and in particular its Article 10(1) and under             (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
      the Treaty establishing the European Community;
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-231/02 (1)
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.                                                                              (2003/C 304/33)
(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-231/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H v
                                                                              Abwasserverband Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha.
       Removal from the register of Case C-379/01 (1)
                          (2003/C 304/30)                                     (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-379/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Ortner GmbH v Allgemeine                            Removal from the register of Case C-380/02 (1)
Unfallversicherungsanstalt.
                                                                                (2003/C 304/34)
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-380/02 (Reference for a preliminary
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/02 (1)                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
                                                                              Vorarlberg): Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH v
                          (2003/C 304/31)                                     Dornbirn.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
By order of 1st August 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case T-209/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of a green octagonal frame) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community mark representing a green octagonal frame — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of a green octagonal frame)
   (Case T-209/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community mark representing a green octagonal frame - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by: S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2014 (Case R 1276/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a green octagonal frame as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Carsten Bopp to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case T-139/13: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2014  — Eltek v OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/25

         Order of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Eltek v OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)
   (Case T-139/13) (1)

   2014/C 329/39
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-98/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  4 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Project carried out without prior application for development consent or assessment — Action inadmissible)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-98/04) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Project carried out without prior application for development consent or assessment - Action inadmissible)
   (2006/C 165/06)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: K. Manji, and subsequently by M. Bethell, Agents, and by P. Sales and J. Maurici, Barristers)
   Re:
   Infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Consent given without assessment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-29/01: Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 61/12                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.2.2001
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the         Pleas in law and main arguments
      prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
      trative measures necessary in order to comply with
      Council Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the               Although, under Article 3(k) of the (former version of the) EC
      marketing of propagating material of ornamental                 Treaty, the activities of the Community include a policy in the
      plants (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to         sphere of the environment, an environmental policy forms
      comply with its obligations under Article 19 of that            part of the task of establishing a common market, as described
      directive;                                                      in Article 2 of the (former version of the) EC Treaty, only in so
                                                                      far as the achievement of the tasks in question is designed to
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.           promote ‘growth respecting the environment’. It follows from
                                                                      this that, in the implementation of Community policies,
                                                                      reasonable regard must be had to environmental aspects, but
                                                                      it does not follow that environmental considerations must be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       given precedence over the implementation of the other policies
                                                                      specified. For the purposes of the present case, this means that,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           in the context of the award of a public service contract, lengthy
Case C-26/01.                                                         transportation routes, or the avoidance of such routes, may
                                                                      not constitute a factor the effect of which is totally to preclude
                                                                      from the outset, by reference to an environmental argument,
(1) OJ L 226 of 13.8.1998, p. 16.                                     the issuing of an invitation to tender for the provision of the
                                                                      services in question and thereby to create an obstacle to trade
                                                                      in services within the Community. Consequently, the City of
                                                                      Braunschweig was not entitled, by having recourse to an
                                                                      environmental argument, illegally to evade the duty imposed
                                                                      by Community law to issue a Community-wide invitation to
                                                                      tender for a contract for refuse disposal.
                                                                      It is irrelevant that the German Government has conceded that
Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission                   there has been an infringement of the Community rules
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                governing the award of public contracts and that the German
                         lic of Germany                               authorities concerned have been instructed to comply with the
                                                                      provisions of EC law governing the award of public contracts,
                                                                      since, by maintaining the contract and continuing to apply it,
                         (Case C-28/01)
                                                                      the City of Braunschweig is persisting in its infringement of
                                                                      Community law.
                         (2001/C 61/21)
                                                                      (1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 23 January 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Josef Christian Schieferer, of the Legal Service of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
Communities, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                      Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
(1) declare that, by virtue of the fact that the City of
      Braunschweig awarded a contract for refuse disposal by
      negotiated procedure without prior publication of a                                       (Case C-29/01)
      contract notice, notwithstanding that the criteria laid
      down in Article 11(3) of Directive 92/50/EE (1) for an                                    (2001/C 61/22)
      award by negotiated procedure without a Community-
      wide invitation to tender were not fulfilled, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      obligations in respect of the award of public service           the Court of Justice on 24 January 2001 by the Commission
      contracts under Article 8 and Article 11(3)(c) of that          of the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero
      directive;                                                      Jordana, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 61/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of Case C-67/00 (1)
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                               (2001/C 61/24)
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996              By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
      concerning integrated pollution prevention and con-               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
      trol (1) or, in any event, to inform the Commission               from the register of Case C-67/00: Commission of the
      thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with           European Communities v Ireland.
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                        (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-68/00 (1)
in Case C-26/01; the time-limit for transposition expired on
30 October 1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/25)
(1) OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26.                                      By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-68/00: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-505/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 61/23)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-70/00 (1)
By order of 6 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                     (2001/C 61/26)
from the register of Case C-505/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                              By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-70/00: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                               European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case C-360/01: Action brought on 21 September 2001 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union

text:
C 331/10                 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
Action brought on 17 September 2001 by the Com-                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
mission of the European Communities against the French                21 September 2001 by the Italian Republic, represented by
                                Republic                              Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Gianni De Bellis,
                                                                      Avvocato dello Stato.
                           (Case C-348/01)
                           (2001/C 331/15)                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      —     annul Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                No 1263/2001 of 27 June 2001 fixing the derived
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Septem-                  intervention prices for white sugar for the 2001/02
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities                      marketing year (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 60), in so far as it fails
represented by G. zur Hausen and J. Adda, acting as Agents,                 to fix derived intervention prices for white sugar for all
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                  the areas of Italy and, in so far as necessary, annul also
                                                                            Article 2(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001
                                                                            of 19 June 2001,
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                      —     order the Commission of the European Communities and
1.    Declare that by not yet having adopted all the laws,                  the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary in
      order to comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of
      3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      assessment of the effects of certain public and private
      projects on the environment (1) or at least by not having       Pleas in law and main arguments
      informed the Commission fully thereof, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      Directive.
                                                                      The Italian Government claims that the Commission, in
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                     determining the internal consumption of sugar to be balanced
                                                                      against production in order to ascertain whether or not there
                                                                      is a deficit, used an unlawful and erroneous determinative
                                                                      criterion.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in          In particular, when forecasting consumption, it did not
Case C-345/01 (2); the deadline for transposition expired on          include sugar used for the preparation of sugar-based products
14 March 1999.                                                        intended for export.
(1) OJ L 73 of 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.                                Italy will therefore find itself having to import white sugar in
                                                                      the 2001/02 marketing year, like any other country in a
                                                                      situation which is hypothetically similar save for the fact that
                                                                      it consumes internally all sugar-based products, whereas Italy
                                                                      instead exports them.
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by the Italian                    According to the Commission’s criterion, such other country
Republic against Commission of the European Communi-                  would be considered in deficit, whereas Italy would not,
           ties and Council of the European Union                     despite the fact that both countries have the same sugar import
                                                                      requirement.
                           (Case C-360/01)
                           (2001/C 331/16)                            Such a result is unfair and runs counter to the scope and
                                                                      purpose of ‘regionalisation’.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties and the Council of the European Union was brought


title: Case C-396/00: Action brought on 26 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
27.1.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 28/11
(4) Are penalties such as those provided for under Article 399          Pleas in law and main arguments
     of the Codice Postale Italiano (Italian Postal Regulations
     set out in Presidential Decree No 156 of 1973) compatible
     with Community law, in the light of the principles of              The Commission claims that even though there existed,
     non-discrimination and proportionality?                            within the area in question, waste-water treatment plants by
                                                                        31 December 1998, Italy should have adopted measures to
                                                                        identify the discharges for the purposes of applying Article
(1) OJ L 91 of 7.4.1999, p. 10.                                         5(5) of the directive by adapting, if necessary, the relevant
(2) OJ L 321 of 30.12.1995, p. 1.                                       plants. Italy cannot justify its delay in fulfilling its obligations
                                                                        under the directive by arguing that the main factors on the
                                                                        basis of which the present situation was to be characterised,
                                                                        for the purposes of the applicability of its obligations under
                                                                        Articles 5(2) and 5(5), have not yet been examined and
                                                                        assessed, since those obligations had been entrusted to local
                                                                        bodies (the Regions). As the Court of Justice has consistently
                                                                        held, Member States cannot rely on provisions of their own
                                                                        internal legal order in order to justify failure to respect the
                                                                        obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive.
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                As regards the exemption under Article 5(4) of the directive, it
                                                                        is clear that it cannot apply unless it can be shown that the
                                                                        minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering
                                                                        all urban waste water treatment plants in that area is of a
                         (Case C-396/00)
                                                                        certain value, which is impossible for the time being because
                                                                        there is no treatment plant in existence.
                          (2001/C 28/19)
                                                                        By declaring a state of emergency, the Italian authorities have
                                                                        shown themselves to be seriously willing to resolve the
                                                                        situation even if the Commission is concerned that, despite
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           having indicated the expected dates of completion of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 October              works, by letter of 9 July and of 27 October 1999, in reply to
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     the letter of formal notice, the latest letter of 6 April 2000
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,           makes no further mention in that respect. In any event, so far
and by Roberto Amorosi, judge on secondment to the Legal                as concerns the present case, nothing of the foregoing changes
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               the fact that Italy is in breach of Community law.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
                                                                        (2) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary
     to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, discharges of
     urban waste water from Milan collected in a basin
     draining into the ‘Po delta’ and ‘northwestern Adriatic
     coastal areas’, as defined by the Decree Law No 152 of
     the Italian Republic of 11 May 1999 (Provisions on the
     prevention of pollution of water and implementation of             Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Kingdom of Spain
     Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban                      against Commission of the European Communities
     waste-water treatment and Council Directive
     91/676/EEC (2) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
     protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates                                    (Case C-398/00)
     from agricultural sources), pursuant to Article 5 of
     concerning urban waste-water treatment, were subject to                                       (2001/C 28/20)
     more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment
     or equivalent described by Article 4 of that directive, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     Article 5(2) of the aforementioned directive, as laid down         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     in Article 5(5);                                                   Communities on 30 October 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                        represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
—    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 boulevard E. Servais.


title: Case C-211/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 3 May 2012 — Martini SpA v Ministero delle Attività Produttive

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 3 May 2012 — Martini SpA v Ministero delle Attività Produttive
   (Case C-211/12)
   2012/C 194/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte di appello di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martini SpA

      Defendant: Ministero delle Attività Produttive

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 35 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the essential aim underlying the penalty laid down therein — consisting in total forfeiture of the security required from Community economic operators which have obtained an import or export licence for a product governed by the common organisation of the market for cereals — is to deter those operators from failing to comply with a primary obligation (such as the actual importation or exportation of the cereals covered by the relevant licence) which they are required to fulfil with regard to the operation in respect of which they have been granted the licence and lodged the relevant security?

               2.

               Must Article 35(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, in so far as it lays down the time-limits and procedure for the release of the security lodged at the time when an import licence is issued, be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a failure to comply with a secondary obligation — consisting, in particular, in the late production of proof that the product has been correctly imported (and, consequently, the late submission of the related application for release of the security lodged) — the amount of the penalty to be imposed must be determined independently of the amount of the specific security the forfeiture of which must be ordered for non-compliance with a primary obligation in relation to those same imports, and must the amount of the penalty be determined, in particular, by reference to the normal amount of security applicable to most imports of products of the same type carried out during the reference period?

               3.

               Must Article 35(4)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, in so far as it provides that ‘.... where, for a given product, there are licences or certificates with different levels of security, the [lowest] rate applicable to imports … shall be used to calculate the amount to be forfeited.’, be interpreted as meaning that, where cereals have been correctly imported by a Community economic operator, non-compliance with the time-limit laid down for producing proof that the product has actually been imported into the European Community must be subject to a penalty calculated by reference to the lowest amount of security in force during the same period in which that product was imported, irrespective of the specific duty applicable (as argued by Martini) or only where the same duty applies (as argued by the Italian State)?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 152, p. 1.


title: Case C-118/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (España) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (España) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea
   (Case C-118/15)
   (2015/C 171/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez

      Defendants: Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea

      Questions referred

   Does Article 1(1)(b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001, in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, preclude an interpretation of the Spanish legislation intended to give effect to the Directive, to the effect that a public-sector undertaking, responsible for a service central to its own activities and requiring important material resources, that has been providing that service by means of a public contract, requiring the contractor to use those resources which it owns, is not subject to the obligation to take over the rights and obligations relating to employment relationships when it decides not to extend the contract but to assume direct responsibility for its performance, using its own staff and thereby excluding the staff employed by the contractor, so that the service continues to be provided without any change other than that arising as a result of the replacement of the workers performing the activities and the fact that they are employed by a different employer?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.


title: Case C-369/02: Action brought on 14 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 289/18                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
1999), compatible with Articles 11 and 12 of Directive 69/                   It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
335/EEC ( 1), in so far as they provide for a charge, payable to             measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
the Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários, for over-
the-counter transactions involving securities which varies
according to the value of the transaction without upper limits?              The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                             has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                             ation of the directive into Greek law.
( 1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
     indirect taxes on the raising of capital. OJ L 249 of 3.10.1969,
     p. 25.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ L 127 of 9.5.2001, p. 38.
Action brought on 9 October 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                             Action brought on 14 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                          (Case C-364/02)                                                                      lic
                          (2002/C 289/31)                                                             (Case C-369/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/32)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in its                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Legal Service.                                                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 Octo-
                                                                             ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in its
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                 Legal Service.
—      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                The Commission claims that the Court should:
       Commission Directive 2001/32/EC (1) of 8 May 2001
       recognising protected zones exposed to particular plant
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit laid
       health risks in the Community and repealing Directive
                                                                                down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       92/76/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2001/
       obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive;
                                                                                33/EC ( 1) of 8 May 2001 amending certain annexes to
                                                                                Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                               against the introduction into the Community of organ-
                                                                                isms harmful to plants or plant products and against their
                                                                                spread within the Community, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    directive;
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                    directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Community.                                                                   each Member State to which they are addressed.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.11.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 289/19
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are                   Removal from the register of Case C-335/01 ( 1)
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                                        (2002/C 289/35)
Community.
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        By order of 23 September 2002 the President of the Court of
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-335/01: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v French Republic.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive into Greek law.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
( 1) OJ L 127 of 9.5.2001, p. 42.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-43/02 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/01 P        (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/36)
                         (2002/C 289/33)
                                                                        By order of 29 August 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                    from the register of Case C-43/02 (Referral for a preliminary
the register of Case C-141/01 P: Confederazione Generale                ruling by the Landgericht Stuttgart): Landesbausparkasse
dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Com-
                                                                        Baden-Württemberg v Elisabeth Huttenlocher.
mission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-295/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-59/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 289/34)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/37)
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        By order of 12 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-295/01 (Referral for a preliminary ruling by         of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato): Fontaneto Industria          the register of Case C-59/02: Commission of the European
Alimentare Srl v ASL No 21 — Dipartimento di Prevenzione                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione.
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                            (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Case F-97/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 June 2008 — De Fays v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Sick leave — Unauthorised absence)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 June 2008 — De Fays v Commission
   (Case F-97/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Sick leave - Unauthorised absence)
   (2008/C 197/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Chantal De Fays (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, agents)
   Re:
   Application for, first, annulment of the Commission's decisions applying with regard to the applicant Article 60 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and, secondly, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               The application is dismissed;

               2.

               The parties are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 45.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 February 1998 in Case T-105/96: Pharos SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Inclusion of somatosalm in the list of substances not subject to maximum residue limits - Action for failure to act - Action for damages)

text:
11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 113/11
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 February 1998
( ) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
 1
                                                                        in Case T-105/96: Pharos SA v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 Ð Inclusion of
                                                                   somatosalm in the list of substances not subject to
                                                                   maximum residue limits Ð Action for failure to act Ð
                                                                                Action for damages)
                                                                                (98/C 113/28)
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 17 February 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-91/96: Nicole Hankart v. Council of the
                      European Union (1)
(Officials Ð Open competition Ð Detailed practical                 In Case T-105/96: Pharos SA, having its registered office
organisational arrangements Ð Loss of a written test Ð             in Seraing (Belgium), represented by Alexandre
                Non-admission to the next test)                    Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                         (98/C 113/27)                             8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                   Torre and Michel Nolin) Ð application, first, pursuant to
                                                                   Article 175 of the EC Treaty, for a declaration that the
                                                                   Commission unlawfully failed to pursue the procedure for
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   including somatosalm produced by the applicant in the list
                                                                   of substances not subject to maximum residue levels in
                                                                   Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of
                                                                   26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for
In Case T-91/96: Nicole Hankart, an official of the                the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (2), and,
Rhode-Saint-GeneÁse (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl           second, within the meaning of Articles 178 and 215
Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and VeÂronique             (second paragraph) of the Treaty for an order that the
Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in      Commission make good the damage which the applicant
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30             considers itself to have suffered through such inaction Ð
rue de Cessange, v. Council of the European Union                  the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
(Agent: TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð application for annulment of         B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
the decision of 13 March 1996 of the selection board in            Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
open competition Council/C/360 not to admit the                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
applicant to the second part of the written tests in that          which it:
competition Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February             1. declares that there is no need to grant                the
1998, in which it:                                                     Commission's request for evidence to be heard,
                                                                   2. declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the
1. annuls the decision of 13 March 1996 of the selection               application for a declaration of failure to act,
     board in open competition Council/C/360 not to
     admit Ms Hankart to the second part of the written
     tests in that competition,
                                                                   3. dismisses the claim for damages as unfounded,
2. orders the Council to pay the costs.                            4. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                           (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 2004 in Case C-481/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2001/12/EC and 2001/13/EC — The Community's railways — Development — Fair, uniform and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure — Licensing of railway undertakings — Common scheme — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 30 September 2004
   in Case C-481/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2001/12/EC and 2001/13/EC - The Community's railways - Development - Fair, uniform and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure - Licensing of railway undertakings - Common scheme - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2004/C 284/11)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-481/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents: S. Schreiner and M. Thill) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways and with Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.


title: Case T-396/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Obligation of the Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality — Temporary exemption granted to a Member State — Request for internal review — Refusal — Measure of individual scope — Validity — Aarhus Convention)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission
   (Case T-396/09) (1)

   (Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Obligation of the Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality - Temporary exemption granted to a Member State - Request for internal review - Refusal - Measure of individual scope - Validity - Aarhus Convention)
   2012/C 217/35
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Vereniging Milieudefensie (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. van den Biesen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver, W. Roels and A. Alcover San Pedro, subsequently by P. Oliver, A. Alcover San Pedro and E. Manhaeve, and finally by P. Oliver, A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Burggraaf, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries, J. Langer and M. de Ree, Agents); European Parliament (represented initially by L. Visaggio and A. Baas, and subsequently by L. Visaggio and G. Corstens, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and F. Naert, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 6121 of 28 July 2009 rejecting as inadmissible the applicants’ request for review by the Commission of Decision C(2009) 2560 final of 7 April 2009 granting the Kingdom of the Netherlands a temporary exemption from the obligations laid down in Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 6121 of 28 July 2009;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case C-338/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 14 July 2014  — Quenon K. SPRL v Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Quenon K. SPRL v Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA
   (Case C-338/14)
   2014/C 339/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Quenon K. SPRL

      Defendants: Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is authorised to provide that after the termination of the contract, the commercial agent has the right to an indemnity for customers of which the amount must not be greater than the amount of remuneration for one year, and that, if that amount does not cover the whole of the loss actually suffered, damages in the sum of the difference between the amount of loss actually suffered and the amount of that indemnity?

               2)

               More specifically, must Article 17(2)(c) of [Directive 86/653] be interpreted as making the award of damages additional to the indemnity for customers conditional upon the existence of a breach of contract or breach of a quasi-delictual duty of care by the principal which was the cause of the losses claimed, and to the existence of loss which is distinct from that compensated for by the lump sum of the indemnity for customers?

               3)

               If the answer to the latter question is yes, must the breach be something other than the unilateral termination of the contract, such as, for example, giving insufficient notice, the grant of insufficient compensation in respect of notice and customers, the existence of serious reasons on the part of the principal, a breach of the right to terminate the contract or any other types of breaches of, in particular, market practice?

      (1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.


title: Case C-301/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution and nuisance — Urban waste water treatment — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3, 4 and 10 — Annex I(A) and (B))

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-301/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste water treatment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3, 4 and 10 - Annex I(A) and (B))
   2012/C 379/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, A.-A. Gilly and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent, D. Anderson QC, and S. Ford and B. McGurk, Barristers)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(1) and (2), 4(1) and (3) and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) and of Annex I(A) and (B) thereto — Failure to have ensured the appropriate treatment of urban waste water from several parts of London (Whitburn, Beckton, Crossness and Mogden)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure:

                           —

                           appropriate collection of the urban waste water of the agglomerations, with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, of Sunderland (Whitburn) and London (Beckton and Crossness collecting systems), in accordance with Article 3(1) and (2) of, and Annex I(A) to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, and

                           —

                           appropriate treatment of the urban waste water of the agglomeration, with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, of London (Beckton, Crossness and Mogden treatment plants), in accordance with Article 4(1) and (3) and Article 10 of, and Annex I(B) to, Directive 91/271,

                     the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case T-201/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — Unicorn v EUIPO — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark UNICORN — Earlier national word and figurative marks UNICORN — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — Unicorn v EUIPO — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)
   (Case T-201/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark UNICORN - Earlier national word and figurative marks UNICORN - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reputation))
   (2016/C 462/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2015 (Case R 1699/2014-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between Unicorn and Mercilink Equipment Leasing.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Unicorn a.s. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case T-6/17: Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/38

         Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA)
   (Case T-6/17)
   (2017/C 063/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITM Entreprises SA (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: The applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA’ — Application for registration No 13 576 616

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 in Case R 690/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action and accordingly annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO, as defendant, and, as appropriate, the other party to the proceedings, ITM Entreprises, to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-54/17: Action brought on 31 January 2017 — CLF v Parliament

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/41

         Action brought on 31 January 2017 — CLF v Parliament
   (Case T-54/17)
   (2017/C 078/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Coalition for Life and Family (CLF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (reference: FINS-2017-16) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering the lodging of a guarantee;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law based on infringement of the Treaties and of the rules of law relating to their implementation.

               —

               The applicant claims that the distinction drawn by the defendant between political parties at European level which have only recently been formed and those which have already been in existence for a significant period of time constitutes an infringement of the general principle of equality in EU law.

               —

               Furthermore, under Article 134(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) and Article 206(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (2) no guarantee at all may be required in the case of low-value grants.

               —

               In addition, the defendant has no interest in obtaining a guarantee since the applicant is represented by members of national parliaments in a sufficient number of Member States to dispel any fear that it might lose its position as a European political party.

               —

               Moreover, the basis on which the defendant harbours doubts as to whether the applicant would respect the basic values of the European Union has not been indicated in any way whatsoever.

               —

               Finally, the measures are disproportionate, since the applicant is not in a position to lodge a guarantee and its economic survival is threatened by the withdrawal of financial support, which involves a distortion in competition for political ideas. This constitutes a serious breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association (Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).