title: Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party: G.M. Imo

text:
20.9.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 226/11
breach of Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 881/92 and of                    Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the Commission of the
Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 3118/93.                                      European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-326/03)
(1) OJ 1992 L 95, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1.                                                                              (2003/C 226/19)
                                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by M.-J. Jonczy, of its Legal Service.
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-324/03)
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 226/18)                                         Council Directive 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning
                                                                                the Agreement on the organisation of working time of
An action against the Commission of the European                                   seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners"
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the Italian                                Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), and in
Republic, represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent,                     any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
and Avvocato dello Stato Antonio Cingolo.                                          the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     annul the memorandum from Commissioner Barnier of
      14 May 2003 No 26777, received on 20 May 2003, in so
      far as it refuses to accept as eligible for assistance advances        Pleas in law and main arguments
      granted in relation to State aid by the Member States after
      19 February 2003, and all measures on which it is based                The period within which the directive had to be transposed
      or with which it is connected;                                         expired on 30 June 2002.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (1) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.
The applicant claims that the contested act is manifestly
contrary to Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (1) and Rule No 1, Points 1 and 2 of the
annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1685/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, none of the provisions of the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
abovementioned regulations assigns significance, for the pur-                Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo,
poses of eligibility of amounts granted to the final recipient of            division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in
the funding by way of State aid, to the activities actually assisted         the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales
by the funding itself. On the contrary, the system set out in the            y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party:
regulations in question gives significance exclusively to pay-                                            G.M. Imo
ments actually made by the Member State as final recipient, on
the sole condition that they state exactly the expenditure actu-                                      (Case C-330/03)
ally borne by the final recipient itself.
                                                                                (2003/C 226/20)
The applicant also claims that the contested act is unlawful
inasmuch as its statement of reasons is defective and contra-                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
dictory.                                                                     European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                             Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three (Supreme
                                                                             Court, Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings) of
                                                                             21 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2003, for
(1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de
(2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.                                                    Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado,
                                                                             other Party: G. M. Imo on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.9.2003
A.    Can Article 3(a), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of               Does the term ‘contracts for the provision of [...] transport [...]
      Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a                 services’, in Article 3(2) of Directive 97/7/EC (1) on the protec-
      general system for the recognition of higher-education               tion of consumers in respect of distance contracts, include
      diplomas awarded on completion of professional education             contracts for the provision of car hire services?
      and training of at least three years" duration (1) be con-
      strued in such a way as to permit restricted recognition by a
      host Member State of the professional qualifications of an
      applicant who possesses the diploma of Ingegnere civile
      idraulico [civil engineer specialising in hydraulics] (awarded       (1) Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
      in Italy) and who wishes to pursue that profession in                    of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of
      another Member State whose legislation regulates the pro-                distance contracts — Statement by the Council and the Parliament
      fession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos [civil                re Article 6(1) — Statement by the Commission re Article 3(1),
                                                                               first indent (OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19).
      engineer]? The question is based on the assumption that the
      latter profession comprises, in the host Member State, activ-
      ities which do not correspond in all cases to those covered
      by the applicant's diploma and that the evidence of educa-
      tion and training adduced by the applicant does not cover
      certain of the core matters which are generally required for
      the award of the qualification of Ingeniero de Caminos,              Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
      Canales y Puertos (civil engineer) in the host Member State.         the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
B.   Should the reply to the first question be in the affirmative,
     is it compatible with Articles 39 and 43 EC to restrict the                                     (Case C-339/03)
     right of applicants who seek to pursue their professions, in
     a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State                                         (2003/C 226/22)
     other than the one in which they were awarded their
     professional qualification, in such a way that the host               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     Member State is entitled to exclude, under its national               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     legislation, restricted recognition of professional qualifica-        Communities on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the
     tions where such a decision, which in principle implements            European Communities, represented by J.-C. Schieferer and
     Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC, entails the imposi-          M. Van Beek, members of the legal service of the Commission
     tion of certain additional, disproportionate requirements             of the European Communities, with an address for service in
     as regards pursuit of the profession?                                 Luxembourg.
     For these purposes, ‘restricted recognition’ is understood to
     mean that which authorises an applicant to work as an                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
     engineer only in the equivalent sector (hydraulics) of the            Court should:
     more general profession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y
     Puertos (civil engineer) regulated in the host Member State,          1.    find that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
     without requiring him to fulfil the additional requirements                 administrative provisions (in particular the laws, regula-
     laid down in Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC.                       tions and administrative provisions for the full implemen-
                                                                                tation of the Directive in the Bundesländer, with the
                                                                                exception of Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, and Baden-
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                                   Württemberg Niedersachsen) necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999 relat-
                                                                                ing to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
                                                                                by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,
                                                                                the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 9 of that directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of                  2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
that court dated 21 July 2003, in the case of easyCar (UK)
                Ltd against Office of Fair Trading
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-336/03)
                                                                           The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
                          (2003/C 226/21)                                  9 April 2002 without all the Bundesländer having adopted
                                                                           the necessary provisions.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 21 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 30 July
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of easyCar (UK) Ltd             (1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.
and Office of Fair Trading on the following question:


title: Case C-381/12 P: Appeal brought on 9 August 2012 by I Marchi Italiani Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2012 in Case T-133/09 I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/20

         Appeal brought on 9 August 2012 by I Marchi Italiani Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2012 in Case T-133/09 I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra
   (Case C-381/12 P)
   2012/C 303/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: I Marchi Italiani Srl (represented by: L. Militerni and G. Militerni, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Osra SA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as that Court dismissed the action brought by I Marchi Italiani Srl and ordered it to pay the costs, with the exception of those relating to the discontinuance;

               —

               grant in part the forms of order sought at first instance and, consequently, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 — notified to the appellant on 30 January 2009 — in proceedings R 502/2008 between I Marchi Italiani Srl and Osra SA, which upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division which had allowed the application for revocation and declaration of invalidity of the mark ‘B Antonio Basile 1952’ following the action brought by Osra S.A;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal lodged by the company I Marchi Italiani Srl is based on the following three grounds:

               1.

               Infringement of Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in so far as the General Court erred in declaring that the documents produced by I Marchi Italiani Srl must be excluded without it being necessary to assess their probative value, and that the arguments relating to the reputation of the contested mark and to the infringement of the principle of good faith were inadmissible.

               2.

               Infringement of Article 53(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) (now Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009), (2) in so far as the General Court erred in declaring that less than five years had elapsed between the date of registration of the (contested) trade mark and the date when the application for a declaration of invalidity was filed and that, therefore, the date on which the Community trade mark application was filed was irrelevant.

               3.

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, in so far as the General Court erred in finding that the marks at issue were similar and therefore misapplied that provision by concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-482/15 R: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission (Interim measures — Public procurement — Call for tenders — Provision of furniture — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for interim measures — Prima facie case not made out)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/56

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission
   (Case T-482/15 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public procurement - Call for tenders - Provision of furniture - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case not made out))
   (2015/C 398/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ahrend Furniture (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: initially, A. Lepièce, V. Dor and S. Engelen, then A. Lepièce, V. Dor, S. Engelen and F. Caillol, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and J. Estrada de Solà, agents)

      Re:

   Primarily, an application for a suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision by which that institution awarded Lot No 1 of the call for tenders OIB.DR.2/PO/2014/055/622 — ‘Provision of furniture’ to another tenderer and, in the alternative, an application seeking an order for the production of documents concerning the financial analysis of the tenders and for suspension of operation of that decision until the expiry of a new standstill period of ten days from the date on which those documents are sent.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 26 August 2015 delivered in Case T-482/15 R is set aside.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-755/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/48

         Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-755/15)
   (2016/C 059/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, S. Naudin and A. Steichen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               primarily, annul the Commission decision of 21 October concerning State aid SA.38375 implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of FIAT;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the Commission decision of 21 October concerning State aid SA.38375 implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of FIAT in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the Commission has not adduced proof that the contested anticipatory decision was selective.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU and of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission did not adduce proof of an advantage or of a restriction of competition.

               3.

               Third plea in law, relied on in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission required recovery of the aid in disregard of the principle of legal certainty and of the rights of the defence.


title: Case C-298/06: Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/4

         Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-298/06)
   (2006/C 237/08)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and I Khatzigiannis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/43/EC (1) of 26 May 2003 amending Directive 88/407/EEC laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 143, 11.6.2003, p. 23.


title: Case C-238/99 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 1999 by Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.12.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/9
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
                                                                           Chamber) of 16 March 1998 in Case T-235/97 Goldstein v
                           of 2 July 1999                                  Commission, not published in the European Court Reports,
                                                                           seeking to have that order set aside, the other party to
                                                                           the proceedings being the Commission of the European
in Case C-158/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) — the Court (Fourth
the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Faro):
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the
    Corticeira Amorim-Algarve Lda v Fazenda Pública (1)
                                                                           Chamber, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
                                                                           J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
                          (Inadmissibility)                                order on 8 July 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (1999/C 352/17)                                  1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                           2. Mr Goldstein is to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-158/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC              (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
(formerly Article 177 of the EC Treaty) from the Tribunal
Tributário de Primeira Instância de Faro (Portugal) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Corticeira Amorim-Algarve Lda and Fazenda
Pública, intervener: Ministério Público, on the interpretation of
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special              Appeal brought on 24 June 1999 by Limburgse Vinyl
Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), in the version thereof resulting from          Maatschappij NV against the judgment delivered on
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985                      20 April 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Compo-
L 156, p. 23) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    sition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch           Communities in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94,
and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,             T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94,
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm (Rap-                 T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94
porteur), L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;                 between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an              SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd,
order on 2 July 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:           DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie
                                                                           GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Monte-
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Tributário    dison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and
de Primeira Instância de Faro is inadmissible.                             Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                                (Case C-238/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/19)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
                                                                           by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                   First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                                                                           T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                  T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
                                                                           T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschap-
                           of 8 July 1999                                  pij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International
                                                                           Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV,
                                                                           Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de
in Case C-199/98 P: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                      Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc,
                  the European Communities (1)                             Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities was brought before the Court of
(Appeal — Manifestly inadmissible and manifestly                           Justice of the European Communities on 24 June 1999 by
                       unfounded application)                              Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, represented by I.G.F. Cath,
                                                                           Advocaat with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
                          (1999/C 352/18)                                  Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of L. Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
                     (Language of the case: English)                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
In Case C-199/98 P: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow                  (1) set aside, either wholly or in part, the judgment delivered
(United Kingdom), represented by Raymond St. John Murphy,                      by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Solicitor, of Messrs Merriman White, 3 King’s Bench Walk,                      on 20 April 1999 against which the present appeal has
Inner Temple, London — appeal against the order of the                         been brought, and terminate the proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
(2) alternatively: set aside the contested judgment, either             — Lapse of time (reasonable period): the appellant has
    wholly or in part, and refer the case back to the Court of             advanced detailed, reasoned arguments — even on the sole
    First Instance in order for the proceedings to be resumed;             basis of the fourth plea advanced in its appeal — to show
                                                                           that Article 6 of the ECHR is applicable per se to the
                                                                           Community procedure in competition matters. By failing
(3) annul, alternatively declare void, either wholly or in part,           (without giving any reasons therefor) to take that funda-
    the contested decision of the Commission of 27 July 1994;              mental point into account, the Court of First Instance has
                                                                           infringed Article 6 of the ECHR. The Court of First Instance
(4) annul, alternatively reduce, the fine imposed on the                   wrongly held in paragraph 123 of the contested judgment
    appellant by the Commission’s decision of 27 July 1994;                that the period during which the 1988 decision formed
                                                                           the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                           First Instance cannot be taken into account in determining
(5) adopt such further measures as the Court may think fit;                the duration of the procedure before the Commission. For
                                                                           the purposes of calculating the relevant period, it is
                                                                           necessary to take into account a period commencing —
(6) order the Commission, as the party at fault, to pay the                according to the findings of the Court of First Instance —
    costs of both sets of proceedings.                                     in November 1983 and ending — according to the
                                                                           case-law of the European Court of Human Rights — on
                                                                           the date of the contested judgment, that is to say, on
                                                                           20 April 1999, totalling 15 years and five months, to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            which must be added the duration of the appeal proceed-
                                                                           ings. Even if the judgment of the Court of Justice of
                                                                           15 June 1994 is regarded as marking the end of the
— Res judicata: the case-law of the Court of Justice, which                period which commenced in November 1983, and the
    places specific, previously decided points ‘beyond dis-                starting-point of the new period is taken to be the
    cussion’, so to speak, inasmuch as those points have been              Commission’s decision of 27 July 1994, the provisional
    definitively determined or have not been challenged on                 conclusion of the matter marked by the contested judg-
    appeal, cannot be ‘turned upside down’, as they are by the             ment gives rise (disregarding the appeal proceedings) to a
    Court of First Instance, by the argument that all other, as            period of four years and nine months. According to the
    yet undecided points thus remain open to debate. That is               settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, a
    tantamount to giving the Commission ‘carte blanche’,                   reasonable period in the case of a ‘criminal charge’ should
    following the annulment of any decision (imposing a                    not exceed two years, unless special circumstances can be
    penalty), to adopt a new decision, until such time as the              shown to exist. That means that, however the period is
    (joint) efforts made by the appellants and the Community               calculated, it does not in any event conform to the ‘two-year
    legislature have rendered the decision ‘free from defects’.            norm’ laid down by the European Court of Human Rights,
    The Community procedure in competition matters                         and is therefore excessive in any event. By failing (without
    resulting in the imposition of a fine must be regarded as a            giving any reasons therefor) to consider that point, the
    ‘criminal charge’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the            Court of First Instance has infringed the law.
    European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
    and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’). As is apparent from              — Invalidity of the procedural measures taken prior to
    the judgment of 15 June 1994 (1), the Commission has not               adoption of the decision
    succeeded, in proceedings conducted up to the highest               — The manner in which the decision of 27 July 1994 was
    judicial level, in obtaining a declaration that the ‘criminal          adopted:
    charge’ imposed by it is well-founded. Thus, that ‘criminal
    charge’ has been definitively dealt with — irrespective of             — Respect for the rights of the defence: the undertakings
    the grounds on which it was held to be unfounded. In the                    were not given the opportunity prior to the adoption
    judgment of 15 June 1994, the Court of Justice did not                      of the decision of 27 July 1994, which was enacted
    refer the matter back to the Commission in order that the                   following the annulment of the decision of
    ‘formal defect’ might be remedied. On the contrary, the                     22 December 1988, to exercise their right of defence:
    Court of Justice itself disposed of the matter by annulling                 the Commission did not give the parties the oppor-
    the decision and ordering the Commission to pay the costs                   tunity of putting forward their observations, either in
    of both sets of proceedings, thereby not only declaring                     relation to the procedure leading to the adoption of
    that the master was to be regarded as definitively concluded                that decision as such, or as regards any objections
    but also expressly excluding the possibility of remedying                   which they might have wished to raise in opposition
    the defects established.                                                    to it. By acting in that way, the Commission infringed
                                                                                the undertakings’ right to a fair hearing. It is clear that
                                                                                the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of
— Non bis in idem: the judgment of the Court of First Instance                  the defence cannot be curtailed by the extremely
    is incorrect and conflicts with the essence of the principle                restrictive meaning applied to it by the Court of First
    involved, which seeks not only to protect a defendant                       Instance, according to which the duty to respect those
    from being pursued and penalised twice for; the same                        rights does not impose on the Commission ‘any
    contraventions — of which, as has been established in                       obligation other than’ to ensure that each undertaking
    proceedings conducted up to the highest judicial level, no                  may, during the proceeding, effectively put its case
    evidence has been adduced — but also to protect such a                      as to ‘the accuracy and relevance of the facts and
    defendant against the mere possibility of being pursued                     circumstances alleged, and on the documents relied
    and penalised twice, irrespective of the reasons for which                  on’ by the Commission in support of its allegation that
    the first proceedings brought against him did not result in                 there has been a breach of Community law. A great
    a ‘conviction’.                                                             many points were raised by the appellant and the other
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/11
        undertakings, on which they wished, and should have                   forms a necessary part of any procedure that may result in
        been allowed, to express their views prior to the                     an act imposing a penalty. The possibility of subsequent
        adoption of the decision of 27 July 1994. It is also                  compensation renders that right of the defence largely
        incorrect to say, as stated in paragraph 252 of the                   illusory.
        contested judgment, that the 1994 decision contains
        no point of any substance which does not appear in               — Limitation: the absence of any reference, in the list
        the 1988 decision.                                                    contained in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2988/74, to a
                                                                              decision imposing a fine is not a master of chance or an
        Consequently, the correct procedure in a situation such               inadvertent omission; it fits precisely into the system of
        as that preceding the adoption of the 1994 decision,                  Regulation No 2988/74 and reflects, as such, the express
        as laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice, is              intentions of the Community legislature. If the proceedings
        to start the procedure afresh ‘in accordance with the                 brought by the undertakings, including the appellant,
        rules on competence and procedure’, inter alia by                     against the decision of 21 December 1988 did not have
        ‘calling upon the parties concerned to submit their                   the effect of stopping time from running in respect of the
        observations’, and thereafter to ‘take all relevant factors           Commission’s right to pursue the matter, that means that,
        into consideration, including, in the present case, the               following the last of the measures referred to in Article 2(1)
        facts already examined in an earlier decision’.                       of Regulation No 2988/74, namely the communication
                                                                              of the statement of objections on 5 April 1988, the
   — Consultation of the Advisory Committee: the Court of                     interruption of the limitation period terminated on 5 April
        First Instance erred in finding that, prior to the                    1993. That period was not suspended; consequently, the
        adoption of the decision of 27 July 1994, there existed               Commission was no longer empowered on 27 July 1994
        no obligation to reconsult the Advisory Committee.                    to adopt a decision imposing (once again) a fine. In the
        The basis of the obligation to consuls the Advisory                   light of that interpretation of Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation
        Committee is to be found in Article 10 of Council                     No 2988/74, which is in conformity with the scheme of
        Regulation No 17, together with Articles 87 to 89 of                  the legislation, the Court of First Instance has given reasons
        the Treaty (in particular Article 89 thereof). That                   which are not only unjust but, in fact, incomprehensible.
        obligation must be construed in the light of those
        higher-ranking rules and not, as the Court of First              (1) Case C-137/92 P, (1994) ECR I-2555.
        Instance states, in the light of a lower-ranking act,            (2) Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 Decemb-
        namely Commission Regulation No 99/63.                               er 1996, No 43/1994/490/572, para. 74.
— Inadequate reasoning
— Protection against self-incrimination: the Court of First
   Instance erred in ruling that the ‘recognition’ of an absolute
   right of silence, as argued for by the appellant, would go
   beyond what is necessary to preserve the rights of the                Appeal brought on 28 June 1999 by (1) DSM N.V. and (2)
   defence and would constitute a hindrance to the Com-                  DSM Kunststoffen B.V. against the judgment delivered on
   mission in the accomplishment of its task. According to               20 April 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Compo-
   the rules laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, as interpreted          sition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
   by the European Court of Human Rights in the Saunders                 Communities in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94,
   judgment (2), it is not possible to infer from the (public)           T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94,
   interest in having investigations carried out any justifi-            T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94
   cation for a restriction of the right of silence. Equally             between (1) DSM N.V. and (2) DSM Kunststoffen B.V.,
   irrelevant, and contrary to the case-law of the Court of              Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA,
   Justice (and of the European Court of Human Rights), is               BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd,
   the further reasoning contained in paragraph 448 of the               Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne
   contested judgment, to the effect that undertakings have              de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries
   every opportunity to put their point of view concerning               plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of
   the documents which, contrary to that principle, they have                               the European Communities
   been called upon to produce and/or the replies which,
   likewise contrary to that principle, they have been required
   to give. In such circumstances, the harm against which                                         (Case C-244/99 P)
   that principle is designed to protect has already been
   suffered.                                                                                (1999/C 352/20)
— Access to the file: Article 6 of the ECHR guarantees the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
   ‘suspect’ a right of ‘equal access’ to the file. That guarantee       by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
   of the rights of the defence, ensuring access on an equal             First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
   footing, can only have any meaning if the finding that the            T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
   Commission did not provide complete access to the file                T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
   results, on its own, in annulment. To impose in that                  T-329/94 and T-335/94 between (1) DSM N.V. and (2) DSM
   connection the additional requirement that the failure to             Kunststoffen B.V., Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf
   provide access may also be shown to have affected the                 Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company
   conduct of the procedure and the content of the decision,             Ltd, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne
   to the detriment of the appellant, amounts to robbing of              de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc,
   its full effect the respect for the rights of the defence which       Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the


title: Case T-187/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Rodd & Gunn Australia v OHIM (Representation of a dog)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/47

         Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Rodd & Gunn Australia v OHIM (Representation of a dog)
   (Case T-187/08)
   (2008/C 171/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Rodd & Gunn Australia Limited (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister and N. Jenkins, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 March 2008 in case R 1245/2007-4;

               —

               order restitutio in integrum in respect of Community trade mark No 339 218; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark consisting of a representation of a dog for goods in classes 16, 18, and 25 — Community trade mark No 339 218

      Decision of the Trade Marks and Register Department: Refusal of the application for restitutio in integrum

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 47 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as renewal of the Community trade mark is permitted not only to the proprietor of such or to its professional representative; the Board of Appeal erred in law and in its assessment of the facts in holding that the Applicant and its authorised representative had failed to exercise due care in the circumstances; the Board of Appeal erred in law in holding that it was careless of the Applicant to appoint Computer Patent Annuities Limited, a trade marks renewals agency, to renew its marks.


title: Case C-143/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg lodged on  17 March 2006  — Ludwigs-Apotheke München Internationale Apotheke v Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg lodged on 17 March 2006 — Ludwigs-Apotheke München Internationale Apotheke v Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH
   (Case C-143/06)
   (2006/C 121/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ludwigs-Apotheke München Internationale Apotheke

      Defendant: Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the rule in the third indent of Article 86(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national rule prohibiting as prohibited advertising the dispatch of price lists for medicinal products to pharmacists if and to the extent that the medicinal products included on those lists are not approved in the relevant Member State but may be imported in isolated cases from other Member States of the European Union and other States?

               2.

               What is the purpose of the rule according to which the title on advertising does not cover trade catalogues and price lists provided they include no product claims, if the scope of application of national provisions on advertising of medicinal products is not thereby exhaustively defined?

      (1)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.


title: Case T-265/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Schenker v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — International air freight forwarding services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price — Evidence contained in an application for immunity — Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients — Code of Conduct rules on duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation — Fiduciary duties — Whether trade between Member States affected — Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed — Choice of companies — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Equal treatment — Cooperation — Settlement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Schenker v Commission
   (Case T-265/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Evidence contained in an application for immunity - Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients - Code of Conduct rules on duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation - Fiduciary duties - Whether trade between Member States affected - Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed - Choice of companies - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Settlement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
   (2016/C 136/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Schenker Ltd (Feltham, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Montag, B. Kacholdt and F. Hoseinian, lawyers, and by D. Colgan and T. Morgan, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Dawes and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by A. Dawes and G. Meessen, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennelly and H. Mussa, Barristers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and for variation of the fine imposed on it in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Schenker Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-152/02: Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 180/28              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.7.2002
Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &                       Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement                of
Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in                                                     Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                        No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                —     No need to refuse the mark
                                                                                claimed registration
                        (Case T-151/02)
                                                                                —     Infringement                of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                        (2002/C 180/48)                                                                     No 40/94
                                                                                —     German registrations       for
                                                                                upright bottles
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May
2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke,
U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
lawyers.
                                                                        Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &
                                                                        Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                                    (Case T-152/02)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 721/
      1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application                                       (2002/C 180/49)
      number 573 238, in so far as it relates to goods in
      Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
      following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;                               (Language of the case: German)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May
                                                                        2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
                                                                        röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K.Brandt, A. Franke,
                                                                        U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
Trade mark applied for:       Three-dimensional mark in the             lawyers.
                              shape of an upright bottle —
                              application No 573 238
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Goods or services:            After limiting the list of goods
                              and services: goods in Class 32
                              (fruit drinks and fruit juices)           —    annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                             Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                             Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 719/
Decision        contested     Refusal to register by the Exam-               1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application
before the Board of           iner                                           number 573 154, in so far as it relates to goods in
Appeal:                                                                      Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
                                                                             following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:                                                                 —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Trade mark applied for:       Three-dimensional mark in the
                              shape of an upright bottle —              —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                              application No 573 154                          Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 747/
                                                                              1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application
Goods or services:            After limiting the list of goods                number 573 360, in so far as it relates to goods in
                              and services: goods in Class 32                 Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
                              (fruit drinks and fruit juices)                 following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;
Decision        contested     Refusal to register by the Exam-
before the Board of           iner
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Appeal:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement                of
                                    Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                    No 40/94 (1)
                              —     No need to refuse the mark
                                    claimed registration                Trade mark applied for:       Three-dimensional mark in the
                              —     Infringement                of                                    shape of an upright bottle —
                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                                     application No 573 360
                                    No 40/94
                              —     German registrations       for      Goods or services:            After limiting the list of goods
                                    upright bottles                                                   and services: goods in Class 32
                                                                                (fruit drinks and fruit juices)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          Decision        contested     Refusal to register by the Exam-
                                                                        before the Board of           iner
                                                                        Appeal:
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                        Appeal:
Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &                       Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement                of
Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in                                                     Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                        No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                —     No need to refuse the mark
                         (Case T-153/02)                                                                    claimed registration
                                                                                —     Infringement                of
                         (2002/C 180/50)                                                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                —     German registrations       for
                                                                                upright bottles
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May                Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke,
U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
lawyers.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-456/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Brescia): Centrosteel Srl v Adipol GmbH (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents — National legislation providing that commercial agency contracts concluded by persons not entered in the register of agents are void)

text:
4.11.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 316/5
      Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on             Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) precludes national
      the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese              legislation of a Member State which, on grounds relating to the
      Republic, is in principle applicable where the defendant has its      requirements of defence of the national territory, exempts the nationals
      domicile or seat in a Contracting State, even if the plaintiff is     of that Member State, and only them, from the obligation to apply
      domiciled in a non-member country. It would be otherwise only         for an administrative authorisation for any purchase of real estate
      in exceptional cases where an express provision of that               situated within an area of the national territory designated as being
      convention provides that the application of the rule of jurisdic-     of military importance.
      tion which it sets out is dependent on the plaintiff’s domicile
      being in a Contracting State.                                         The position would be different only if it could be demonstrated to
                                                                            the competent national court that, in a particular area, non-
2.    The rules of special jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance    discriminatory treatment of the nationals of all the Member States
      set out in Articles 7 to 12a of that convention do not cover          would expose the military interests of the Member State concerned to
      disputes between a reinsurer and a reinsured in connection with       real, specific and serious risks which could not be countered by less
      a reinsurance contract.                                               restrictive procedures.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.                                                     (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                              (First Chamber)
                            of 13 July 2000                                                             of 13 July 2000
in Case C-423/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-456/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    the Corte d’Appello di Napoli): by Alfredo Albore(1)                    the Pretore di Brescia): Centrosteel Srl v Adipol GmbH (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital                        (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents
— Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       — National legislation providing that commercial agency
Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)                 contracts concluded by persons not entered in the register of
— Authorisation procedure for the purchase of immovable                                                 agents are void)
property — Areas of military importance — Discrimination
                     on grounds of nationality)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/09)
                           (2000/C 316/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-456/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Brescia
In Case C-423/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Magistrates’ Court, Brescia), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte d’Appello                 the proceedings pending before that court between Centrosteel
di Napoli, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Srl and Adipol GmbH — on the interpretation of Council
pending before that court by Alfredo Albore — on the                        Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
interpretation of Articles 6, 52 and 56 of the EC Treaty (now,              nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 46 EC) and                       employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) and of
Article 67 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of                      the provisions in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of Title III of Part
Amsterdam) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                        Three of the EC Treaty concerning, respectively, freedom of
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                 establishment and freedom to provide services — the Court
mann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and F. Macken,              (first chamber) composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamb-
Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                   er, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges, F.G. Jacobs,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                     on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the                       Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-               18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in
employed commercial agents precludes national legislation which               fruit and vegetables, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
makes the validity of an agency contract conditional upon the                 No 3284/83 of 14 November 1983, must be interpreted as
commercial agent being entered in the appropriate register. The               meaning that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(1) of
national court is bound, when applying provisions of domestic law             that regulation, that is to say where it has made certain rules on
predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those                production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organisation
provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose       binding on producers established in the district who do not belong to
of the Directive, so that those provisions are applied in a manner            that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain non-member
consistent with the result pursued by the Directive.                          producers from the payment of fees, in respect of a given product, in
                                                                              so far as the goods produced by them are intended for industrial
                                                                              processing rather than for the fresh-product market.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 13 July 2000                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-117/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                of 13 July 2000
the Cour de Cassation): Union Nationale Interpro-
fessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le
Bars v Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole                       in Case C-136/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
          Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) (1)                         the Conseil d’État): Ministre du Budget, Ministre de
                                                                              l’Économie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di
                                                                                Siena (1)
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Fruit and vegetables — Producers’ organisations — Impo-
sition of fees on non-member producers of fresh products —                    (Turnover tax — Common system of value added tax —
Exemption for non-member producers of products intended                       Refund of the tax to taxable persons not established in the
        for processing — Lawfulness of the exemption)                         country — Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC and
                                                                                Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC)
                           (2000/C 316/10)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/11)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-117/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour de                           In Case C-136/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Cassation, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil d’État,
pending before that court between Union Nationale Interpro-                   France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
fessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le Bars                 before that court between Ministre du Budget, Ministre de
and Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole Fruits                   l’Économie et des Finances and Société Monte Dei Paschi Di
et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) — on the interpretation of                   Siena — on the interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth
Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council                  Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market                       harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(II),                turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added
p. 437), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3284/83                    tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the
of 14 November 1983 (OJ 1983 L 325, p. 1) — the Court                         country (OJ 1979 L 331 p. 11), — the Court (Fifth Chamber)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                 composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                    L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathe-
M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                   let, Judges, A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                       13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-543/08: Action brought on 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/21

         Action brought on 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-543/08)
   (2009/C 19/40)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Braun, P. Guerra e Andrade and M. Teles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by maintaining the State's special rights in the EDP — Energias de Portugal, granted in connection with the State's golden shares, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 EC and 43 EC;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The EDP's articles of association provide for one vote for every share, but do not take into consideration the votes attaching to ordinary shares not held by the State cast by a shareholder exceeding 5 % of all votes corresponding to share capital.
   Under the Portuguese legislation, the State has special rights in the EDP regardless of the number of shares it holds. Those special rights are, in particular, the right to veto resolutions of the general meeting relating to changes to the memorandum and articles of association (including decisions to increase capital, and merger, demerger and winding-up decisions), to the conclusion of joint contracts relating to groups or subsidiaries and to the abolition or limitation of the preferential subscription right of shareholders on an increase of capital.
   The State also has the special right to appoint an administrator when it has voted against the choice of administrators proposed and approved.
   The Commission believes that both the limiting of votes and the special rights amount to a restriction of the movement of capital and of freedom of establishment. Those measures constitute an obstacle to direct investment in the EDP, an obstacle to portfolio investment and an obstacle to the exercise of freedom of establishment.
   Those special rights of the State constitute State measures, for the golden shares do not stem from the normal application of company law.
   The limiting of votes, in the circumstances in which it was introduced, also amounts to a State measure.
   Those golden shares and the limiting of votes do not respond to legitimate objectives in the common interest or, in particular, to those pleaded by the Portuguese State, namely, public safety and security of supply and the concession of a public service.
   In any case, the Portuguese State has failed to observe the principle of proportionality, for the measures in question are not apt to ensure the attainment of the objectives pursued and they go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve them.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-195/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/439/EEC — Driving licences — Mutual recognition — Compulsory registration and exchange — Conditions for the renewal of licences issued prior to the transposition of the directive)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-195/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/439/EEC - Driving licences - Mutual recognition - Compulsory registration and exchange - Conditions for the renewal of licences issued prior to the transposition of the directive)
   (2004/C 262/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-195/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 27 May 2002 by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Castillo de la Torre and W. Wils) against Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster and S. Terstal) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond, assisted by A. Robertson) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting Articles 22 to 24 and 25(2) of the Reglamento de conductores (Regulations on Drivers), of 30 May 1977, and also the seventh transitional provision of those regulations, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(2) and 7(1)(a) of, and point 4 of Annex I to, Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Case C-518/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Third-party liability motor insurance — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Directive 92/49/EEC — National legislation imposing an obligation to insure on insurance undertakings — Restriction on the freedom of establishment and on the freedom to provide services — Social protection for victims of road traffic accidents — Proportionality — Insurance undertakings’ freedom to set rates — Principle of supervision by the home Member State)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-518/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Third-party liability motor insurance - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Directive 92/49/EEC - National legislation imposing an obligation to insure on insurance undertakings - Restriction on the freedom of establishment and on the freedom to provide services - Social protection for victims of road traffic accidents - Proportionality - Insurance undertakings’ freedom to set rates - Principle of supervision by the home Member State)
   2009/C 153/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by E. Traversa and N. Yerrell, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and by M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by J. Himmanen, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Infringement of Articles 6, 9, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) — Calculation of insurance premiums — Obligations imposed on insurers whose head office is in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-25/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék — Hungary) — proceedings against István Balogh (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to interpretation and translation — Directive 2010/64/EU — Scope — Definition of criminal proceedings — Procedure laid down by a Member State for the recognition of a decision in criminal proceedings handed down by a court in another Member State and for the entry in the criminal record of the conviction handed down by that court — Costs in connection with the translation of that decision — Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA — Decision 2009/316/JHA)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék — Hungary) — proceedings against István Balogh
   (Case C-25/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Right to interpretation and translation - Directive 2010/64/EU - Scope - Definition of criminal proceedings - Procedure laid down by a Member State for the recognition of a decision in criminal proceedings handed down by a court in another Member State and for the entry in the criminal record of the conviction handed down by that court - Costs in connection with the translation of that decision - Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA - Decision 2009/316/JHA))
   (2016/C 296/14)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budapest Környéki Törvényszék

      Party to the main proceedings

   István Balogh

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to a national special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision handed down by a court of another Member State convicting a person for the commission of an offence.
   Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States and Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315 must be interpreted as precluding the implementation of national legislation establishing such a special procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-465/01: Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
6.4.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 84/43
      should proceed to enter the customs debt in question in          (1) Does Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome permit a Member
      the accounts. By virtue of Article 221(1) of the CCC, the             State to prohibit cultivation or other processing of
      Member State is required to take immediate steps,                     ‘industrial hemp’ allowed under EC regulations?
      following the entry in the accounts, to recover the debt
      by communicating the amount thereof to the debtor. The
      Netherlands is incorrect in its view that it may take as         (2) If that is not the case, can an exception nevertheless be
      much time as it wishes to carry out a careful assessment,             made under Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome with the
      ‘having regard to the quantity and complexity of the                  result that such a prohibition does not conflict with EC
      evidence produced in a given case’. The argument                      law?
      advanced by the Netherlands can only be regarded as
      seeking the application of Article 219 of the CCC.
      However, Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC are provisions          (3) If that is not the case, can the Swedish prohibition be
      designed to safeguard the financial interests of the                  accepted on some other ground?
      Community, for which customs receipts constitute a
      form of own resources, and which thus has an interest in
      the rapid determination of those receipts. Consequently,
      it is not open to the Member States to invoke, at will,
      extensions under Article 219 of the CCC as against the
      Commission. On the contrary, the Member States must
      always show why the reasons invoked by them render it
      necessary to extend the time-limit for entry in the
      accounts.
—     Infringement of Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation
      No 1552/89.                                                      Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Republic of
—     Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89:                                         Austria
      the infringements complained of in the last two pleas are
      necessary consequences of the infringement described in
      the first plea. During the period in question, the Nether-
      lands failed to make the principal sum available. In                                    (Case C-465/01)
      addition, it has hitherto constantly refused to pay the
      corresponding default interest. Since the end of 1996
      the Commission has been requesting the Netherlands
                                                                                (2002/C 84/75)
      authorities to pay to it the sum of NLG 5 323 395,06 by
      way of default interest.
( 1) OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.                                              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
( 4) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.                                              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
( 5) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.                                              4 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Jörn Sack, Legal Adviser in the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, with an address
                                                                       for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
                                                                       Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Lux-
                                                                       embourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Halmstads
Tingsrätt (Sweden) by order of that court of 8 November
      2001 in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-462/01)
                                                                       (1) declare that:
                           (2002/C 84/74)
                                                                            (a)  by excluding workers from other EC/EEA Member
                                                                                States from the right to stand for election to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           chambers of workers, the Republic of Austria has
European Communities by order of the Halmstads Tingsrätt                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of
(District Court, Halmstad) of 8 November 2001, which was                         Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of
received at the Court Registry on 3 December 2001, for a                         movement for workers within the Community and
preliminary ruling in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten                     under Article 28 of the Agreement on the European
on the following questions:                                                      Economic Area;
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/44                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
      (b) by excluding workers from third countries who are                 ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
            lawfully employed in a Member State from the right              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
            to stand for election to the works councils and
            general assemblies of chambers of workers, the
            Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
            under the provisions of the Association Agreements
            concluded by the Community with such third                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
            countries, which prohibit discrimination against
            such workers;
                                                                            —     declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                               down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                1999/89/EC (1) of 15 November 1999 amending Direc-
                                                                                tive 91/494/EEC on animal health conditions governing
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                                  intra-Community trade in and imports from third
                                                                                countries of fresh poultrymeat, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
According to Article 39(2) EC, the right to freedom of                            directive;
movement within an EC Member State enjoyed by nationals of
other Member States entails the abolition of any discrimination
based on nationality between workers of the Member States as                —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of
work and employment. Article 28 of the EEA Agreement
contains analogous provisions. In addition, Article 8(1) of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for
workers within the Community expressly confers on workers
from other Member States the ‘right of eligibility for workers’
representative bodies in the undertaking’. That wording                     Pleas in law and main arguments
includes within its ambit the right to elect, and to stand for
election to, workers’ representative bodies within a Member
State.
                                                                            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
The Commission further argues that the notion of conditions
                                                                            each Member State to which they are addressed.
of work and employment as contained in the Association
Agreements and comparable agreements must be interpreted
as having the same meaning as in Article 39(2) EC and
Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, according to which
it covers the exercise of rights of participation in management,            Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
such as the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in works              to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
council elections and elections to chambers of workers.                     to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                            or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                            Community.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
                                                                            It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                            measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                            The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                  lic
                                                                            has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                            ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
                          (Case C-466/01)
                           (2002/C 84/76)
                                                                            (1) OJ No L 300, 23.11.1999, p. 17.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 Decem-