title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 1998 in Case C-390/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels): Lease Plan Luxembourg SA v Belgian State (Sixth VAT Directive - Car-leasing services - Fixed establishment - Rules governing reimbursement of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the State - Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 258/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2. Article 48 of the Treaty precludes a Member State
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                     from providing that the owner of an undertaking
                                                                           exercising a trade on the territory of that State may
                        of 7 May 1998                                      not appoint as manager a person not resident there.
in Case C-350/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Clean Car Autoservice                    (1) OJ C 388 of 21.12.1997.
           GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien (1)
(Freedom of movement for workers Ð National
legislation requiring legal persons to appoint as manager a
 person residing in the country Ð Indirect discrimination)
                        (98/C 258/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: German)                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 May 1998
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        in Case C-390/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
          published in the European Court Reports)                    the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels): Lease Plan
                                                                                Luxembourg SA v Belgian State (1)
                                                                      (Sixth VAT Directive Ð Car-leasing services Ð Fixed
In Case C-350/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      establishment Ð Rules governing reimbursement of VAT
of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
                                                                      to taxable persons not established in the territory of the
(Administrative Court) (Austria), for a preliminary ruling
                                                                                State Ð Principle of non-discrimination)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Clean Car Autoservice GmbH and Landeshauptmann von                                            (98/C 258/02)
Wien Ð on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC
Treaty and Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/
68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
movement for workers within the Community (OJ,
English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) Ð the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F.                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; N. Fennelly,                      published in the European Court Reports)
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which
it has ruled:                                                         In Case C-390/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg
                                                                      (Court of First Instance), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling
1. The rule of equal treatment in the context of freedom              in the proceedings pending before that court between
     of movement for workers, enshrined in Article 48 of              Lease Plan Luxembourg SA and the Belgian State Ð on
     the EC Treaty, may also be relied upon by an                     the interpretation of Article 9(1) of the Sixth Council
     employer in order to employ, in the Member State in              Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     which he is established, workers who are nationals of            harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
     another Member State.                                            to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1)            Belgium (Agent: Annie Snoecx) Ð application for a
and of Articles 6 and 59 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court                declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                  Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on
(Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet,                  common rules and standards for ship inspection and
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-                 survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              maritime administrations (OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 20),
given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which it has ruled:               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     under that directive and the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
1. The term fixed establishment' in Article 9(1) of the             President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
     Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977               Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of            judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
     value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be
     interpreted in such a way that an undertaking
     established in one Member State which hires out or
                                                                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period
     leases a number of vehicles to clients established in
                                                                          prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative
     another Member State does not possess a fixed
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     establishment in that other State merely by engaging in
                                                                          94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and
     that hiring out or leasing.
                                                                          standards for ship inspection and survey organisations
                                                                          and for the relevant activities of maritime
2. It is contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty for                      administrations, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     national rules to provide that taxable persons not                   fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that
     established in a Member State, who apply for a refund                Directive;
     of VAT in accordance with the Eighth Council
     Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                  2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     relating to turnover taxes Ð Arrangements for the
     refund of value added tax to taxable persons not
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
     established in the territory of the country, are entitled
     to interest only from such time as notice to pay was
     served on that Member State and at a lower rate than
     that applied to the interest paid to taxable persons
     established in the territory of that State automatically
     on the expiry of the statutory time-limit for
     reimbursement.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
( ) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
 1                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 May 1998
                                                                     in Case C-62/97 P: Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v María Lidia Lozano Palacios (1)
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Officials Ð Former national export on
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              detachment Ð Installation allowance)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (98/C 258/04)
                        of 14 May 1998
in    Case    C-368/97: Commission of the European                                    (Language of the case: French)
            Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
                      Directive 94/57/EC)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                         (98/C 258/03)                                          published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     In Case C-62/97 P: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Julian Currall, assisted by Denis
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Waelbroeck) Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 1996
                                                                     in Case T-33/95 Lozano Palacios v Commission [1996]
                                                                     ECR-SC II-1535, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
In Case C-368/97: Commission of the European                         the other party to the proceedings being: María Lidia
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber) v Kingdom of                 Lozano Palacios, official of the Commission of the


title: Case T-69/17: Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/58

         Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte)
   (Case T-69/17)
   (2017/C 104/81)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ — Application for registration No 13 971 163

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2205/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul Decision No 013971163 of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 September 2015;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2002 in Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — Admissibility — State aid — Obligation to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
C 169/32                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
for annulment of the Commission’s decision C(98) 241 final                 Commission require importers of ferro-silicon originating in
(REM 13/97) of 4 February 1998 finding that remission of                   those four countries to provide security corresponding to the
duties should be refused as regards imports of television sets             expired anti-dumping duties and to subject their imports to
from Turkey — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                 registration, or, in the further alternative, for an order that the
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,           Commission require the said importers to subject their imports
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 April 2002,                to registration — the President of the Court of First Instance
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 has made an order on 27 February 2002, the operative part of
                                                                           which is as follows:
1.   There is no need to give a decision on the present action;
                                                                           1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
2.   There is no need to give a decision on the application by the
     Kingdom of Spain for leave to intervene;
                                                                           2.    The costs are reserved.
3.   The Commission is to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE                                                                 of 4 April 2002
                       of 27 February 2002                                 in Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages and Others v Com-
           mission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Proceedings for interim measures — Admissibility — State
                                                                           aid — Obligation to recover aid — Prima facie case —
(Application for interim measures — Appeal — Referral                                   Urgency — Weighing up of interests)
back to the Court of First Instance — Dumping — Decision
 terminating expiry review — Urgency — Lack of urgency)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/58)
                         (2002/C 169/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages, established in Brussels,                 In Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
Péchiney électrométallurgie, established in Courbevoie                     established in Ilmenau (Germany), represented by G. Schohe,
(France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön (Sweden),                avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Ferroatlántica, established in Madrid, represented by D. Voille-          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
mot and O. Prost, lawyers, supported by the Kingdom of Spain               schitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for suspension of the
(Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) against Commission of the European               operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and                           of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for
A.P. Bentley), supported by TNC Kazchrome, established in                  Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 30),
Almaty (Kazakhstan) and Alloy 2000 SA, established in                      and in the alternative, an application for interim measures —
Luxembourg, represented by J.E. Flynn, Barrister, and J. Magnin            the President of the Court of First Instance, has made an order
and S. Mills, Solicitors, — application for suspension of the              on 4 April 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
operation of Commission Decision of 21 February 2001 (OJ
2001 L 84, p. 36) in so far as it terminates the anti-dumping
proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in              1.    The operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/
the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine                   185/EEC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by
and for an order that the Commission re-impose expired anti-                     Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH is sus-
dumping duties, and in the alternative, for an order that the                    pended until 17 February 2003.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/33
2.    That suspension is subject to the following conditions: first, the     The applicant claims that the conduct of the Parliament is not
      applicant shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First            covered by the legislation promulgated and that it has been
      Instance and at the Commission, by 5 August 2002, an                   prompted by considerations which are not germane to the
      interim report on its financial situation to 1 July 2002; second,      matter. The Parliament found in 1998 that the applicant had a
      the applicant shall repay to the BvS a first instalment of the         residence in Germany, and the applicant sent, together with
      contested aid in the sum of 256 000 euros by 31 December               the annual declaration, a confirmation of registration issued
      2002 and shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First             by the local authority for his place of residence. He claims to
      Instance and at the Commission, within one week of making              have proved to the administration that he has only one
      the payment, written proof of the said part repayment of the           German residence and a corresponding centre of vital interests,
      contested aid; third, the applicant shall lodge at the Registry of     and that there is thus no valid reason entitling the adminis-
      the Court of First Instance and at the Commission, by                  tration to demand further proof. The administrative practice
      31 January 2003, a report on its financial situation to                of the Parliament is neither lawful nor reasonable; moreover,
      31 December 2002.                                                      it does not accord with the duties of mutual cooperation.
3.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                             Action brought on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn, Inc.
                                                                             against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf
Yorck von Wartenburg against the European Parliament
    and the Commission of the European Communities                                                   (Case T-107/02)
                           (Case T-82/02)                                                            (2002/C 169/60)
                          (2002/C 169/59)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             European Communities on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn,
An action against the European Parliament and the Com-                       Inc., represented by Mr Geert Glas of Allen & Overy, Brussels
mission of the European Communities was brought before the                   (Belgium).
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg,
of Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. Heyland, lawyer,               A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                   was Atofina Chemicals, Inc.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     by way of modification to the European Parliament’s                    —     annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 17
      decision of 28 May 2001, order the appointing authority                      January 2002 in case R 1003/2000-1 to the extent that
      to apply to the applicant’s emoluments as a former                           it annuls the Decision nr 2004/2000 of the Opposition
      servant of the Communities, with effect from December                        Division of 7 September 2000; remit the case to the
      2000, the weighting for the Federal Republic of Germany,                     Opposition Division for further prosecution; order each
      to pay over the amounts not paid since then and to make                      party to bear their own costs incurred in connection with
      corresponding payments in future for as long as the                          the appeal;
      applicant maintains his residence in Germany.
                                                                             —     order the Office to pay all costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the                 Applicant for the Com-        BetzDearborn, Inc.
European Parliament who has been retired since 1998, is                      munity trade mark:
contesting the Parliament’s decision not to apply any weighting
to the applicant’s retirement pension since 1 December 2001                  The Community trade           The word mark ‘BIOMATE’ for
in the absence of proof that he actually resides in Germany.                 mark concerned:               certain goods in class 1


title: Case C-219/02: Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
10.8.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 191/21
     waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent                   comply fully with Directive 98/84/EC (1) of the European
     authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9               Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on
     of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation           the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of,
     is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?                     conditional access, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
2.   Does Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended by
     Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     with Article 9 of Directive 75/442 or with any other
     provision of the same directive, preclude a Member State
     which has not adopted within the period prescribed one
     or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable               Pleas in law and main arguments
     disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
     permits to operate waste disposal installations such as
     landfills?
                                                                        In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                        directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
3.   Does Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by               each Member State to which they are addressed.
     Directive 91/156, mean that the plan or plans relating in
     particular to ‘suitable disposal sites or installations’ must
     be drawn up not later than 1 April 1993, or does it mean           Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
     that they must be drawn up within a reasonable period,             to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
     which may exceed the period prescribed for transposing             to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
     the Directive into national law?                                   or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                        Community.
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 28.3.1991, p. 32.                                        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directive at issue into Greek law or, of course,
                                                                        notified such measures to the Commission.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 320, 28.11.1998, p. 54.
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-219/02)
                        (2002/C 191/34)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
                                                                        Social No 3 of Orense by order of that Court of 30 March
                                                                        2002 in the case of Rosa Garcı́a Blanco against Instituto
                                                                        Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
                                                                                la Seguridad Social
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 June
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                                (Case C-225/02)
represented by Maria Patakia and Niels Bertil Rasmussen, of its
Legal Service.
                                                                                (2002/C 191/35)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the             European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,             (Social Court) No 3 of Orense of 30 March 2002, received at


title: Case C-204/00 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2000 by Aalborg Portland A/S against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
Appeal brought on 24 May 2000 by Aalborg Portland A/S                   (ii) by not annulling the Decision on the ground that the
against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000 by the                        Commission had infringed the appellant’s right to a fair
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                           hearing by amending the factual analysis, and hence the
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases                        legal conclusion, in the Decision from what was set out
T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95,                         in the statement of objections;
T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95,
T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95,
T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95,
T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95,                   (iii) by not annulling the Decision on the ground that the
T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95,                         Commission had infringed Article 253 of the Treaty by
T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 (1)                          failing to give proper reasons for its choice of heads of
Cimenteries CBR SA and Others v Commission of the                             liability and the issue of limitation periods; and
                    European Communities
                        (Case C-204/00 P)                               (iv) by not itself addressing and by failing to give more
                                                                              detailed reasons for its failure to take account of the
                                                                              submissions which the appellant set out in its application
                         (2000/C 247/09)                                      concerning the Commission’s defective reasoning in
                                                                              regard to the objections raised by the appellant in its
                                                                              reply to the statement of objections concerning the issue
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the                 of limitation periods.
European Communities on 24 May 2000 by Aalborg Portland
A/S, represented by Karen Dyekær-Hansen and Katja Høegh,
of the Copenhagen Bar, against the judgment delivered on
15 March 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in                   The Court of First Instance infringed Article 81 of the EC
Joined Cases T-25/95 et al. Cimenteries CBR SA and Others v             Treaty and Articles 3 and 15 of Council Regulation No 17/62
Commission of the European Communities.                                 in that its judgment misapplies the law:
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (i)   in so far as the appellant, Aalborg Portland A/S, in
                                                                              accordance with the Decision, is regarded as being
—     (Primarily) Annul the judgment in regard to Aalborg                     responsible for actions performed and conduct displayed
      Portland A/S in so far as that judgment upholds the                     by a separate legal entity;
      Decision (2) with respect to Aalborg Portland A/S;
—     (In the alternative) Annul in part the judgment in regard
      to Aalborg Portland A/S in so far as it upholds the               (ii) in so far as the determination of the fine by the Court of
      Decision with respect to Aalborg Portland A/S;                          First Instance breaches the fundamental requirement,
                                                                              when fines are imposed, that there be compliance with a
                                                                              principle of equality and a principle of proportionality
—     (In the further alternative) Refer the case back to the                 (see also Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62, which
      Court of First Instance for fresh consideration;                        provides that fines must be proportionate to the degree
                                                                              of fault and significance of the infringement). The fine
—     Annul the fine, primarily in its entirety, or alternatively             must for that reason be annulled in its entirety, or
      in part;                                                                alternatively in part; and
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
      Aalborg Portland A/S in the proceedings before both
                                                                        (iii) in so far as the Court of First Instance upholds
      Community Courts.
                                                                              Articles 2(2)(b), 4(1) and 4(3)(a) of the Decision.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The imposition of the fine is contrary to Council Regulation
The Court of First Instance infringed essential procedural              (EEC) No 2988/74 (4) on limitation periods in so far as:
requirements which must be complied with when a fine is
imposed under Regulation No 17/62 (3):
                                                                        (i)   The Court of First Instance unjustifiably assumes that the
(i)   by not annulling the Decision on the ground that the                    agreement lasted until 31 December 1988 by virtue of a
      Commission had infringed the appellant’s right to a fair                legally incorrect classification of the annual exchange of
      hearing through its failure, during the administrative                  competition-neutral price information as a measure for
      procedure, to grant the appellant access to a number of                 implementation of the agreement referred to in Article 1
      potentially exculpatory documents;                                      of the Decision (see Article 2(2)(b) of the Decision); and
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/7
(ii) The Court of First Instance unjustifiably finds Aalborg               The Appellant claims that the Court should:
      Portland A/S responsible for the infringements set out in
      Article 4(1) (establishment of the ETF) and Article 4(3)(a)
      (concerted practice designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi as             (a)   set aside or annul the judgment of the Court of First
      a customer from the Greek producers, in particular Titan)                  Instance in so far as it upholds the Decision of the
      of the Decision, alternatively in so far as responsibility                 Commission (2) in respect of Irish Cement Ltd;
      for this is extended beyond 9 September 1986.
                                                                           (b) set aside or annul part of the judgment of the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in so far as it upholds the Decision of the
(1) OJ C 101 of 22.4.1995, pp 10-20; C 119 of 13.5.1995, pp 13-                  Commission in respect of Irish Cement Ltd;
    26; C 137 of 3.6.1995, pp 23-28, 33 and 34, and C 208 of
    12.8.1995, pp 26 and 27.
(2) Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating             (c)   in lieu thereof:
    to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126
    and 33.322 — Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343 of 30.12.1994, p. 1).
(3) First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty,              (i)   declare that the Decision of the Commission is void;
    OJ English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87.
(4) Regulation No 2988/74 of 26 November 1974 concerning limi-
    tation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions               (ii) make an order cancelling or, in the alternative,
    under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to                     reducing the fine imposed upon the Appellant;
    transport and competition.
                                                                                (iii) make an order awarding the Appellant its costs
                                                                                against the Commission.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Prior to the oral procedure the Court of First Instance ordered
Appeal brought on 24 May 2000 by Irish Cement Ltd                          the Commission to comply with two measures of organisation
against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000 by the                     of procedure, to enable the Appellants to have access to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                        documents which had not been disclosed to them during
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in joined cases                     the administrative procedure. The Commission ultimately
T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95,                      complied with these measures.
T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95,
T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95,
T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95,                      The Appellant contends that:
T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95,
T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95,
T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 (1)                       (a)   The Court of First Instance does not have competence to
between Cimenteries CBR SA and others and the Com-                               attempt to retrospectively repair the defective procedures
            mission of the European Communities                                  of the Commission and, furthermore, was not empowered
                                                                                to conclude that the outcome of the administrative
                                                                                procedure could not have been different if access to the
                         (Case C-205/00 P)
                                                                                file had been given at the appropriate time;
                          (2000/C 247/10)
                                                                           (b) By requiring submissions on how the documents made
                                                                                available might have affected the position of the Appellant
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 March by the                      and then adjudicating on those submissions the Court of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth                      First Instance committed a breach of procedure;
Chamber, Extended Composition) in joined cases T-25/95 etc.
between Cimenteries CBR SA and others and the Commission
of the European Communities, was brought before the Court                  (c)   The Court of First Instance made a serious error of
of Justice of the European Communities on 24 May 2000 by                         assessment when it found that the Appellants’ access to
Irish Cement Ltd, a company incorporated under Irish law,                        the investigation file was equal to that which they should
established in Dublin, represented by Paul Sreenan, SC, and                      have had during the administrative procedure. Arising
John Glackin, Solicitor, of Gerrard, Scallan & O’Brien, Solici-                  from this manifest error of assessment, the Court of First
tors, Dublin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   Instance’s subsequent approach to the assessment of the
Chambers of Kramer Associés & Clifford Chance, 6 rue                             effect of the infringements on the rights of the defence is
Heinrich Heine.                                                                  fundamentally flawed.


title: Case T-300/07: Action brought on 31 July 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/22

         Action brought on 31 July 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-300/07)
   (2007/C 235/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of the Direction General for Informatics to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tender ENTR/05/078 — YOUR EUROPE Lot 1 (Editorial Work and Translations) for ‘Your Europe Portal Management and Maintenance’ (OJ 2006/S 143-153057) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 21 May 2007 (‘the decision on Lot 1’) and to award the contracts to the successful contractor,

               —

               annul the Commission's decision (DIGIT) to reject the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open Call for Tender ENTR/05/078 — YOUR EUROPE Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for ‘Your Europe Portal Management and Maintenance’ (OJ 2006/S 143-153057) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 13 July 2007 (‘the decision on Lot 2’) and to award the contracts to the successful contractors;

               —

               order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 1 125 000 Euros for Lot 1 and EUR 825 000 Euros for Lot 2;

               —

               order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its claims the applicant argues that, in the framework of the tendering procedure ENTR/05/078 YOUR EUROPE Lot 1 (Editorial Work and Translations) for ‘Your Europe Portal Management and Maintenance’ (OJ 2006/S 143-153057) and ENTR/05/078 — YOUR EUROPE Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for ‘Your Europe Portal Management and Maintenance’ (OJ 2006/S 143-153057), the contracting authority, DG DIGIT of the European Commission, failed to comply with its obligations foreseen in the Financial Regulation (1), its Implementing Rules and Directive 2004/18/EC (2) as well as the principles of transparency and equal treatment
   The applicant moreover submits that the contracting authority committed several manifest errors of assessment which resulted in the rejection of its bid. Furthermore, the contracting authority allegedly infringed its obligation to state reasons for its decision and, in particular, to inform the applicant on the relative merits of the successful tenderer.
   The applicant requests, hence, that the decision of the European Commission to reject its bid and to award the contract to the successful tenderer be annulled and that the defendant is ordered to pay all legal expenses related to the proceedings even in case the application is rejected. In the alternative, if the contract has already been executed by the time the Court reached its decision or if it is no longer possible to annul the decision, the applicant requests monetary compensation (damages) of EUR 1 125 000 for Lot 1 and EUR 825 000 for Lot 2 in accordance with Articles 235 and 288 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114).


title: Action brought on 13 July 1995 by Geneviève Pavan against the European Parliament (Case T-147/95)

text:
No C 248/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 9 . 95
He states in this connection that his staff report for the             — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
period 1991 /93 was notified to him only on 1 July 1994,
belatedly in relation to what is laid down in the provisions           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicable; notification in fact took place after publication
of the list of officials most deserving of promotion drawn up
by Directorate-General XX for 1994 . When examining the                The applicant challenges the decision by the Parliament,
                                                                       notified by letter of 29 September 1994 , to take steps to
applicant's case, the promotions committee therefore had
available only a belated and inaccurate staff report, since it         recover, pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, part
was subsequently amended after the applicant had                       of the household allowance that she had been receiving from
submitted a compliant. The applicant concludes that the list           1 June 1987 corresponding to the prime de menage paid to
of officials most deserving of promotion drawn up on that              her husband by the Luxembourg authorities over the same
basis by the promotions committee, and the subsequent                  period . She considers that the rule against overlapping
promotion decisions adopted by the appointing authority,               benefits is not applicable in her case, since both the legal
are void pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations .             nature and the conditions for granting the household
                                                                       allowance are completely different from those governing the
                                                                       prime de menage.
The applicant states further that the promotions committee
committed a manifest error of assessment in calculating his
seniority in the grade . He considers that that seniority              The applicant points out in this connection that under
should have been calculated from 1985 , the date on which              Luxembourg legislation the prime de menage: ( a ) is
he was promoted to LA 5 , and not from 1989 , the date on              contractual in nature; ( b ) is paid regardless of family
which he was appointed to Grade A 5 having succeeded in                expenses; and ( c ) is subject to tax. She concludes that despite
internal competition COM/2/87 for transfer from the                    its name, the prime de menage is not a family allowance , in
Language Service to Category A.                                        contrast to the household allowance paid by the European
                                                                       Communities .
Action brought on 13 July 1995 by Genevieve Pavan against              Action brought on 14 July 1995 by etablissements
                     the European Parliament                           J. Richard Ducros against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         ( Case T-l 47/95 )
                           ( 95/C 248/35 )                                                      ( Case T-149/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/36 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance on 13 July 1995 by                  An action against the Commission of the European
Genevieve Pavan, resident in Luxembourg, represented by                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for               Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1995 by
service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 51 Rue                 Etablissements J. Richard Ducros, established in Paris,
Albert ler .                                                           represented by Philippe Genin, of the Lyons Bar, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision adopted on 29 September 1994 by the
     European Parliament pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff           — annul the decision of the Commission closing the
     Regulations,                                                           procedure which it had initiated,
— declare that the prime de menage received by the                     — order the defendant to pay costs .
     applicant's husband should not be set off against the
     household allowance received by her,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that the European Parliament should reimburse                The applicant, a public limited liability company
     all the sums improperly retained pursuant to the decision          incorporated under French law, engaged in the metal
     of 29 September 1994 ,                                             construction and boiler-marking sector, contests the
                                                                        Decision of the Commission, published in the Official
— declare that the applicant should receive in their entirety          Journal of the European Communities of 16 May 1995
     all the household allowance payments that should have              under No C 120, p. 4 , in which it decided to close the
     been paid from December 1994 ,                                     procedure initiated on 11 March 1992 under Article 93 ( 2 )


title: Case C-105/02: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Communities' own resources — Undischarged TIR carnets — Failure to forward the corresponding own resources)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/1

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Germany
   (Case C-105/02) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Communities' own resources - Undischarged TIR carnets - Failure to forward the corresponding own resources)
   (2006/C 294/01)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and C. Giolito, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and R. Stüwe, Agents, D. Sellner, Lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Wimmer and A. Snoecx, acting as Agents, assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat)
   Re:
   Failure by a State to comply with its obligations — Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources — Failure to recover custom duties guaranteed by certain TIR carnets and to transfer the corresponding own resources — Import duties for which ‘no security has been provided’ or which ‘have been contested’ — Carnets in respect of which the reinsurer has disputed his obligations.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by failing properly to process certain transit documents (TIR carnets), with the result that the own resources arising therefrom were not correctly entered in the accounts or made available to the Commission of the European Communities within the prescribed periods,

                           —

                           by failing to inform the Commission of the European Communities of all the other uncontested customs duties treated in the same way (entry in the B accounts instead of entry in the A accounts) in respect of the non-discharge of TIR carnets by the German customs authorities from 1994 until the amendment of the Decree of the Federal Minister for Finance of 11 September 1996,

                     the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, replaced, with effect from 31 May 2000, by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 01.06.2002.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Raad van State, by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996 in the case of VT4 Limited v. Vlaamse Gemeenschap, represented by the Flemish Government, Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en Eletriciteit van het Westen and Others intervening (Case C-56/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133 / 13
federation in order to be able to compete in an international           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Raad van
competition, and which lay down national entry quotas or                State, by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996 in the
similar competitions, are contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in            case of VT4 Limited v. Vlaamse Gemeenschap, represented
particular Articles 59 to 66 and Articles 85 and 86 .                   by the Flemish Government, Intercommunale Maatschappij
                                                                        voor Gas en Eletriciteit van het Westen and Others
                                                                                intervening
                                                                                Case C-56/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/27 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Appello, Milan, First Civil Division, by order of 30 January            European Communities by judgment of the Belgian Raad
1996 in the non-contentious proceedings brought before it               van State ( State Council ) of 14 February 1996 , which was
                      by Job Centre Coop. arl.                          received at the Court Registry on 26 February 1996 , for a
                           ( Case C-55/96 )                             preliminary ruling in the case of VT4 Limited v . Vlaamse
                             ( 96/C 133/26 )                            Gemeenschap, represented by the Flemish Government,
                                                                        Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en Elektriciteit van
                                                                        het Westen and Others intervening on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question:
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello,
Milan, First Civil Division, of 30 January 1996, which was              at the time of the contested decision, may regard be had, for
received at the Court Registry on 23 February 1996 , for a              the purposes of interpreting Article 2 of Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the non-contentious proceedings                   89/552/EEC of 3 October 1 989 ( 1 ) with regard to its scope
brought before that court by Job Centre Coop , arl on the               ratione personae, to abovementioned draft and proposal of
following questions :                                                   31 May 1995 ( 2 ) of the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities and to the abovementioned text provisionally
 1 . May the provisions of Italian national law contained in            adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European
      Article 11(1 ) of Law No 264 of 29 April 1949 and                 Communities on 20 November 1995 ? If so, what meaning
      Article 1(1 ) of Law No 1369 of 23 October 1960 ,                 overlapping the three different texts must be inferred for the
      whereby the business of acting as an intermediary and             purposes of that interpretation ?
      negotiator between those seeking and those offering
      employment is prohibited unless carried on by the public          (M OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p . 23 .
      offices specified in those provisions, be regarded as             ( 2 ) OJ No C 185 , 1995 , p . 4 .
      relating to the exercise of official authority within the
      meaning of the combined provisions of Articles 66 and
      55 of the EC Treaty in view of the fact that they are
      treated by Italian law as relating to matters of public
      policy because their purpose is to protect the interests of
      workers and the national economy ?                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Netherlands Raad
                                                                        van State, by judgment of that court of 22 February 1996
2 . Must those provisions, in view of their general scope,              in the case of H. Meints v. Minister van Landbouw,
       be regarded as conflicting with the principles of                                     Natuurbeheer en Visserij
       Community law laid down by Articles 8 , 49, 55 , 59, 60,                                     Case C-57/96
       62 , 66 , 86 and 90 of the said Treaty concerning the right                                   96/C 133 /28
      to work, freedom of economic initiative, freedom of
      movement for workers and others, freedom of supply
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       and demand for work and services, free and fair
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Netherlands
      competition between economic agents and the abuse of               Raad van State ( State Council ) of 22 February 1 996 , which
       dominant positions ?
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 26 February 1996 , for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Meints v. Minister
 3 . In the event that the abovementioned legislation of the
                                                                         van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( Minister for
       Italian State concerning employment agency business is
                                                                         Agriculture, Nature Conservancy and Fisheries ) on the
       in breach of the principles of Community law mentioned
                                                                         following questions :
       in the foregoing question, must the judicial and
       administrative     authorities   of that    Member    State
                                                                         1 , does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 apply to a benefit
       consider themselves bound to apply those principles                     such as that provided for in the Vergoedingsregeling
       directly, allowing public and private bodies and                       voor Uitreding van Werknemers in de Landbouw
       undertakings to act as intermediaries between those                     ( Compensation Rules for Workers Leaving Farming )
       offering and those seeking employment and temporary                     which does not depend on the duration of
       work, subject to compliance with the provisions                         unemployment and forms part of a scheme of measures
       governing employment contracts and mandatory social                     for the structural improvement of the agricultural sector
       security and subject to the controls provided for by                    which emphasizes the promotion of the complete or
       law ?
                                                                               partial cessation of farming and the abandonment of
                                                                               farming by farmers ? What other circumstances may also
                                                                               be relevant ?


title: Case C-443/00: Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 45/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
1.   Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on          (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     the establishment of a European Works Council or a
     procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
     munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes              Pleas in law and main arguments
     of informing and consulting employees, in particular
     Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
     to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking          of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
     is resident outside the the Community are obliged to              obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
     provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central          into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
     management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)             expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
     and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the         prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
     average total number of employees and their distribution          1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
     across the Member States, the establishments of the               the field covered by the directive.
     undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
     the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
     controlled by it?                                                 (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
2.   If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     affirmative:
     Does the obligation to provide information also
     encompass the names and addresses of the employee
     representation which is to participate, on behalf of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
     the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings              of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
     controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating      Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
     body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in          vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
     the establishment of a European Works Council?                    of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
                                                                       Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                     Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
                                                                                Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd
                                                                                (Case C-444/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/18)
Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                         lic of Germany
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
                                                                       trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
                        (Case C-443/00)                                Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
                         (2001/C 45/17)                                Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
                                                                       of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by              the following questions:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal        Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
Service of the Commission of the European Communities,                 ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of             constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the                  Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre                  Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and Commission Decision
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
                                                                       separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
                                                                       ingots, sheets or coils of steel:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order             1.    Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
     to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European                       be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
     Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on                     when they have been:
     the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
     of personal data and on the free movement of such                       a.    rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or
     data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
     comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and                     b.     used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
     under Article 32 of that directive;                                           or coils of steel?


title: Case T-549/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/19

         Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO)
   (Case T-549/11)
   2012/C 6/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Real Seguros, SA (Porto, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registrations No 249791, No 249793 and No 254390; In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2011 in case R 115/2011-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The international trade mark registration No W 983684 of the figurative mark ‘real,- BIO’, in green, white and brown, for services in class 36

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 249791 of the word mark ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; Portuguese trade mark registration No 249793 of the word mark ‘REAL SEGUROS’, for services in class 36; Portuguese figurative mark registration No 254390 comprising the word element ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; various unregistered rights claimed to be protected in all Member States or in Portugal

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed marks.


title: Appeal brought on 13 January 1995 by New Holland Ford Ltd against the judgment delivered on 27 October 1994 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-34/92 between Fiatagri UK Ltd and New Holland Ford Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-8/95 P)

text:
4 . 3 . 95            I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/9
Appeal brought on 13 January 1995 by New Holland Ford                     concerted practice to be incompatible with
Ltd against the judgment delivered on 27 October 1994 by                  Article 85 ( 1 ), in particular the requirement of an
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  anti-competitive purpose or effect.
European Communities in case T-34/92 between Fiatagri
UK Ltd and New Holland Ford Ltd and the Commission of
                   the European Communities                           2. Misapplication of Article 85 (2 ) of the Treaty and of the
                                                                          principle established in Consten and Grundig
                         ( Case C-8/95 P
                            ( 95/C 54/15                                  The Court of First Instance denied the applicability to
                                                                          the present case of the principle formulated in the
                                                                          Consten and Grundig judgment, according to which:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 October
                                                                           'the provision in Article 85 ( 2 ) that the agreements
1994 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance ,
                                                                          prohibited pursuant to Article 85 shall be automatically
of the European Communities in case T-34/92 between
                                                                          void applies only to those parts of the agreement which
Fiatagri UK Ltd and New Holland Ford Ltd and the
                                                                           are subject to the prohibition, or to the agreement as a
Commission of the European Communities, was brought                       whole if those parts do not appear to be severable from
before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on                 the agreement itself f 1 )..
13 January 1995 by New Holland Ford Ltd, of Cranes Farm
Road, Basildon, Essex (United Kingdom), represented by
Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar and Giuseppe                               The Court of First Instance erred in denying the
Scassellati-Sforzolini of the Bologna Bar, both of Cleary,                 applicability of an EC law principle which would likely
                                                                           have led it to conclude that the Decision had to be
Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton, Brussels, with an address for
                                                                           annulled.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss
and Prussen, 15 , Cote d'Eich.
                                                                      3 . Misapplication of Article 85 ( 3 )
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's
                                                                           finding on Article 85 ( 1 ) and denied that the exchange,
— declare the appeal timely and admissible,                                or at least the data system, merited an individual
                                                                           exemption. While permitting the Commission not to
— annul the Judgment in its entirety,                                      prove actual effects on competition under Article 85 ( 1 ),
                                                                           it required the applicants to prove that competition
— annul the Decision in its entirety or, alternatively,                    would actually have developed differently in the absence
       remand the case to the Court of First Instance, and                 of the exchange, in order to show that information
                                                                           under the exchange and the data system is indispensable
— condemn the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal                      for the purpose of Article 85 ( 3 ). The absence of
       fees and expenses.                                                  demonstrable dramatic changes in the market after the
                                                                           exchange was suspended in 1988 prove that the
                                                                           Commission wrongly presumed that Article 85 ( 1 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments:                                          should apply to the exchange.
The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of               (') Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 56/64 and
 First Instance is defective and should be annulled because of:           58/64 ( 1966 ) ECR p. 292, 344 .
 ( a ) breaches of procedural rules adversely affecting the
 interests of the appellants; and ( b) the misapplication of
 Article 85 of the Treaty.
 Procedural errors
                                                                      Action brought on 16 January 1995 by the Kingdom of
 The Court of First Instance failed to give sufficient reasons        Belgium against the Commission of the European
 on decisive points of the judgment and failed to address all                                  Communities
 of the material factual errors in the Decision and their
                                                                                Case C-9/95 )
 impact on the legality of the Decision.
                                                                                95/C 54/16
 Substantive errors
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 1 . Misapplication of Article 85 ( 1 )                               European Communities on 16 January 1995 by the
                                                                      Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Head of
       The Court of First Instance misapplied Article 85 ( 1 ) of     Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
       the Treaty in two significant ways: ( a ) it wrongly defined   Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, with an
        and described the relevant market; and ( b ) it wrongly       address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4
        interpreted the requirements for an agreement or              Rue des Girondins .


title: Case C-53/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) Section d'administration, by judgment of 8 February 2002 in the case of Commune de Braine-le-Château against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt

text:
C 109/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
2)    Is the object of the directive to provide protection in such        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
      a way that persons other than the authors of the fixture            (Belgium) Section d’administration, by judgment of 8 Feb-
      list may not, without authorisation, use the data in that           ruary 2002 in the case of Commune de Braine-le-Château
      fixture list for betting or other commercial purposes?              against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste
                                                                               Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt
3)    For the purposes of the directive, does the use by Veikkaus
      relate to a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or
      quantitatively, of the database, having regard to the fact
                                                                                (Case C-53/02)
      that, of the data in the fixture list, on each occasion only
      data necessary for one week is used in the weekly pools
      coupons, and the fact that the data relating to the matches
      is obtained and verified from sources other than the
      maker of the database continuously throughout the                                            (2002/C 109/48)
      season?
(1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
    of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77,
    p. 20).
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat
                                                                          (Council of State), Belgium (Administrative Section) of 8 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 February 2002,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Commune de Braine-le-
                                                                          Château against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste
                                                                          Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt, on the
                                                                          following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-                      1.    Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
Holsteinen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that                              Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
Court of 31 January 2002 in the administrative-law case                         on waste (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and 3. Albertus Snoek                         18 March 1991 (2), to draw up one or more waste
             against Federal Republic of Germany                                management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
                                                                                disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
                                                                                which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
                           (Case C-47/02)                                       a geographical map the precise locations of the planned
                                                                                waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria
                                                                                which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent
                          (2002/C 109/47)                                       authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9
                                                                                of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation
                                                                                is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holsteinen                 2.    Do Articles 4,5 and 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court, Schles-                    by Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction
wig-Holstein) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court                         with Article 9 of Directive 75/442, preclude a Member
Registry on 19 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the                   State which has not adopted within the period prescribed
administrative-law case of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and                   one or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable
3. Albertus Snoek against Federal Republic of Germany on the                    disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
following question:                                                             permits to operate waste disposal installations, such as
                                                                                landfills?
Are provisions of national law which require the nationality of
the flag State — in this instance German nationality — for the
exercise of the activity of master (captain) of a vessel used in
small-scale maritime shipping and flying the flag of that                 (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Member State compatible with Article 39 of the Treaty                     (2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
establishing the European Community?