title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-6/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Abfall Service AG (ASA) v Bundesminister für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment on the ground of an incorrect classification — Directive 75/442/EEC on waste — Classification of deposit of waste in a disused mine)

text:
4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 109/5
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for the              Salzburg, on the interpretation of Articles 56 EC to 60 EC, the
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-               Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,              the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,            Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
has given a judgment on 7 March 1999, in which it:                         R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                           General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           Articles 56 EC to 60 EC:
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     do not preclude a prior notification procedure such as that laid
                                                                                down by the scheme for the acquisition of land established by
( 1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz 1997;
                                                                           —     preclude a prior authorisation procedure such as that laid down
                                                                                by that scheme.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            5 March 2002
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
C-540/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans Reisch
e.a. v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg,                                                27 February 2002
Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg, Grund-
     verkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg (1)
                                                                           in Case C-6/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Abfall Service AG (ASA) v
(Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Prior                              Bundesminister für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (1)
notification and authorisation procedure for the acquisition
   of building plots — Absence of purely internal situation)
                                                                           (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
                                                                           shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of
                           (2002/C 109/07)                                 dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a
                                                                           shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment
                                                                           on the ground of an incorrect classification — Directive
                    (Language of the case: German)                         75/442/EEC on waste — Classification of deposit of waste
                                                                                in a disused mine)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   (2002/C 109/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and
C-526/99 to C-540/99: Reference to the Court under                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Article 234 EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salz-                                     in the European Court Reports)
burg (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Hans Reisch (C-515/99),
Walter Riedl (C-527/99), Alexander Hacker (C-528/99),
Gerhard Eckert (C-529/99), Franz Gstöttenbauer (C-530/99),                 In Case C-6/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Helmut Hechwarter (C-531/99), Alois Bixner (C-532/99), Geza                by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
Aumüller (C-533/99), Berthold Garstenauer (C-534/99 and                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
C-536/99), Robert Eder (C-535/99), Hartmut Ramsauer                        Abfall Service AG (ASA) and Bundesminister für Umwelt,
(C-537/99 and C-538/99), Harald Kronberger (C-539/99),                     Jugend und Familie, on the interpretation of Council Regu-
Erich Morianz (C-540/99) and Bürgermeister der Landes-                     lation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision
hauptstadt Salzburg, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes                  and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.5.2002
European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), as amended by                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Commission Decision No 98/368/EC of 18 May 1998 (OJ
1998 L 165, p. 20), and Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991                                              26 February 2002
L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of
24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,              in Case C-23/00 P: Council of the European Union v
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,                            Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in
which it has ruled:
                                                                              (Appeal — Admissibility — Application to set aside a
                                                                              judgment of the Court of First Instance to the extent to
                                                                              which that Court declared that there was no need to rule on
1.   It follows from the system established by Council Regulation
                                                                              an objection of inadmissibility raised against an application
     (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
                                                                                dismissed by it as unfounded)
     control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
     European Community, as amended by Commission Decision
     98/368/EC of 18 May 1998,
                                                                                (2002/C 109/09)
     —      that the competent authority of dispatch, within the
            meaning of Article 2(c) thereof, is competent to verify
            whether a proposed shipment classified in the notification                          (Language of the case: English)
            as a ‘shipment of waste for recovery’ does in fact correspond
            to that classification, ssssand
     —      that, if that classification is incorrect, the authority must
            oppose the shipment by raising an objection founded on            In Case C-23/00 P, Council of the European Union (agents:
            that misclassification within the period prescribed by            M. Sims-Robertson and I. Dı́ez Parra): Appeal against the
            Article 7(2) of the Regulation.                                   judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                              Communities (Second Chamber) of 1 December 1999 in
                                                                              Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council
                                                                              and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427, seeking to have that
2.   The deposit of waste in a disused mine does not necessarily              judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the proceedings
     constitute a disposal operation for the purposes of D 12 of              being: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH, C.H. Boehrin-
     Annex II A to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975               ger Sohn, established in Ingelheim am Rhein (Germany),
     on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of                  (agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard), Commission of
     18 March 1991 and Commission Decision 96/350/EC of                       the European Communities (agent: X. Lewis), Fédération
     24 May 1996.                                                             européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels
                                                                              (Belgium), (agent: A. Vandencasteele), Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
                                                                              rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), established in La Haye
     The deposit must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to
                                                                              (Netherlands) (agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret) and
     determine whether the operation is a disposal or a recovery
                                                                              United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agent:
     operation within the meaning of that Directive.
                                                                              G. Amodeo, assisted by D. Lloyd Jones, QC), the Court,
                                                                              composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
                                                                              F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), A. La
     Such a deposit constitutes a recovery if its principal objective is
                                                                              Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
     that the waste serve a useful purpose in replacing other materials
     which would have had to be used for that purpose.                        R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
                                                                              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                              on 26 February 2002, in which it:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                     1.   Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              2.   Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs
                                                                                incurred by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
                                                                                C.H. Boehringer Sohn;


title: Case T-555/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — iPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing v OHIM (representation of a navigational device)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/35

         Action brought on 16 December 2008 — iPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing v OHIM (representation of a navigational device)
   (Case T-555/08)
   (2009/C 55/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: iPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by V. Knies, lawyer)

      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 3 October 2008 in Case R 709/2008-4 and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark representing a navigational device in the colours black and blue, characterised inter alia by a blue lateral stripe, for goods and services in Classes 9, 39 and 42 (application No 6 092 639).

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the trade mark applied for has the required distinctive character.

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


title: Case T-201/17: Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Printeos v Commission

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/30

         Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Printeos v Commission
   (Case T-201/17)
   (2017/C 168/39)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU or, alternatively, the first paragraph of Article 226 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Commission to pay:

                           (a)

                           financial compensation corresponding to the compensatory interest on the sum of EUR 4 729 000 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, for the period between 9 March 2015 and 1 February 2017, which results in an amount of EUR 184 592,95 or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and

                           (b)

                           default interest on the amount of compensatory interest under the preceding subparagraph (a) for the period between 1 February 2017 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph in compliance with a judgment upholding the present action, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate;

               —

               In the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the Commission Decision of 26 January 2017, consisting in the repayment to the applicant only of the principal amount of the fine wrongly paid by it in complying with the Envelopes decision excluding all interest;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present proceedings, the applicant brings, principally, an action for damages seeking financial compensation equivalent to the interest which the Commission ought to have paid it when repaying it the principal amount of the fine wrongly paid in complying with Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) (‘the Envelopes decision’), after that decision was annulled by the judgment of the Court of 13 December 2016, in Case T-95/15 Printeos S.A. and Others v Commission (‘the Printeos judgment’). In the alternative, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2017, by which its claim for the abovementioned interest was dismissed.

               1.

               In support of its action for damages, the applicant submits that the claim for financial compensation is based on the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, since the Commission failed to implement the Printeos judgment in full, in not paying it the relevant interest, or, alternatively, on the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, for the damage caused by the Envelopes decision and the failure to implement the Printeos judgment in full.
               The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission’s unlawful conduct had no legal basis because Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1), relied upon by the Commission in its decision of 26 January 2017, had already been repealed, and because Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1) must be considered contrary to Article 266 TFEU, Article 340 TFEU and Articles 41(3) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               In support of its alternative application, seeking annulment, the applicant submits that the legal basis on which the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2017 is based had been repealed, was not applicable and, in any event, had to be considered unlawful, a plea of illegality also being raised in that regard.


title: Case T-489/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Espacio Activos Financieros v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/51

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Espacio Activos Financieros v Commission
   (Case T-489/14)
   2014/C 282/66
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Espacio Activos Financieros, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. De Zunzunegui Ruano, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in clear breach of the principle of legal certainty; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
   The applicant alleges, in particular, that the Commission erred in characterising as State aid the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as a whole, as well as the individual measures; that it erred in its identification of the beneficiary of the measures; and that it acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case F-22/06: Action brought on  6 March 2006  — Vienne and Others v European Parliament

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/32

         Action brought on 6 March 2006 — Vienne and Others v European Parliament
   (Case F-22/06)
   (2006/C 108/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Philippe Vienne (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the annul the explicit decision of 14 November 2005 whereby the European Parliament refused to afford the applicants assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Parliament to make good all the loss thereby sustained by the applicants;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who are all officials or other servants of the European Parliament, had sought to have their pension rights acquired in Belgium transferred to the Community system, in accordance with the provisions of a Belgian law enacted in 1991. In 2003 Belgium enacted a new law which, in the applicants' submission, provides more favourable conditions for new transfers of that type. As the applicants had already transferred their rights, however, they were unable to take advantage of the provisions of the Law of 2003.
   The applicants therefore submitted a request seeking to obtain the assistance provided for in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. The European Parliament, which had no intention of assisting its officials and temporary servants to secure those transfers, rejected their request by decision of 14 November 2005.
   By their action, the applicants contest that decision, which they treat as a refusal to afford assistance, in breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. In addition to that article, they rely in support of their claims on a breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of the staff, of the principle of non-discrimination, of the prohibition of arbitrary process, of the obligation to state reasons, of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ and on a misuse of powers.


title: Case C-427/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova by order of that court of  31 January 2005  in Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Genova 1 v Porto Antico di Genova SpA

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova by order of that court of 31 January 2005 in Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Genova 1 v Porto Antico di Genova SpA
   (Case C-427/05)
   (2006/C 36/43)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova of 31 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Genova 1 and Porto Antico di Genova SpA on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 55 of DPR (Decree of the President of the Republic) No 917 of 22 December 1986 (in the version in force in the year 2000), under which EEC contributions are taken into account for the purpose of determining taxable income, compatible with Article 21(3) of Regulation No 2082/93 (1), which provides that '[t]he payments shall be made to the final beneficiaries without any deduction or retention which could reduce the amount of financial assistance to which they are entitled'?

               2.

               If there is a finding of incompatibility, will it apply solely to funds granted and payable by Community bodies or will it also apply to funds that are described in the SPD (Single Programming Document) as being payable by national bodies?

      (1)  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993 p. 20.


title: Case C-363/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VII ème arrondissement de Paris (France), lodged on 2 August 2007 — Hewlett Packard International SARL v Administration des douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris (France), lodged on 2 August 2007 — Hewlett Packard International SARL v Administration des douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects
   (Case C-363/07)
   (2007/C 269/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hewlett Packard International SARL

      Defendant: Administration des douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects,
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the copy function of a multifunction apparatus of the kind described in these proceedings, designed to operate through a direct connection or a network with one or more computers, but capable, as regards the copying function only, of operating autonomously, constitute a ‘specific function other than data processing’ within the meaning of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature?

               2.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, does the existence of that specific function, which is expressly acknowledged not to give the product its essential character, mean that classification in Chapter 84, pursuant to Note 5(E), is to be excluded despite the existence of printing and scanner functions associated with data processing?

               3.

               If that is the case, and in relation to equipment made up of two materially distinct modules (printer and scanner), should the classification not be made on the basis of General Rule 3(b)?

               4.

               More generally, on a correct interpretation of the Harmonised System and of the Combined Nomenclature, must printers of the kind described in this procedure be classified under heading 8471 60 or 9009 12 00?

               5.

               Is it not the case that Commission Regulation (EC) No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006 (1) is invalid, in particular because it is contrary to the Harmonised System, to the Combined Nomenclature and to Rules 1 and 3(b) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonised System and the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it relies on the concept of a ‘function that gives the apparatus its essential character’ and its effect would be to classify printers of the kind described under heading 9009 12 00?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 70, p. 9).


title: Case C-83/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2010 — Aurora Sousa Rodriguez y otros v Air France S.A.

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2010 — Aurora Sousa Rodriguez y otros v Air France S.A.
   (Case C-83/10)
   2010/C 113/37
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Aurora Sousa Rodríguez, Yago López Sousa, Rodrigo Puga Lueiro, Luis Rodríguez González, María del Mar Pato Barreiro, Manuel López Alonso, Yaiza Pato Rodríguez

      Defendant: Air France S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the term ‘cancellation’, defined in Article 2(l) of [Regulation EC No 261/2004], (1) to be interpreted as meaning only the failure of the flight to depart as planned or is it also to be interpreted as meaning any circumstance as a result of which the flight on which places are reserved takes off but fails to reach its destination, including the case in which the flight is forced to return to the airport of departure for technical reasons?

               2.

               Is the term ‘further compensation’ used in Article 12 of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a cancellation, the national court may award compensation for damage, including non-material damage, for breach of a contract of carriage by air in accordance with rules established in national legislation and case-law on breach of contact or, on the contrary, must such compensation relate solely to appropriately substantiated expenses incurred by passengers and not adequately indemnified by the carrier in accordance with the requirements of Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation 261/2004/EC, even if such provisions have not been expressly relied upon or, lastly, are the two aforementioned definitions of the term further compensation compatible one with another?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case F-146/12: Action brought on 28 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/78

         Action brought on 28 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-146/12)
   2013/C 26/164
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme applying the new General Implementing Provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision of 3 February 2012 to apply the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-366/12: Action brought on 10 August 2012 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (Yoghurt-Gums)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/12

         Action brought on 10 August 2012 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (Yoghurt-Gums)
   (Case T-366/12)
   2012/C 319/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by T. Schmitz, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2012 in Case R 523/2012-4 and amend it in such a way that the appeal is dismissed in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Yoghurt-Gums’ for goods in Classes 6, 24 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 9 455 197

      Decision of the Examiner: partial rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case C-75/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Majali Abdel

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Majali Abdel
   (Case C-75/12)
   2012/C 118/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Revere

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   Majali Abdel

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

               2.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?

               3.

               Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case T-724/14: Action brought on 7 October 2014  — ECFA and IEP v Commission and EACEA

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/38

         Action brought on 7 October 2014 — ECFA and IEP v Commission and EACEA
   (Case T-724/14)
   (2015/C 007/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: European Children’s Fashion Association (ECFA) (Valencia, Spain) and Instituto de Economía Pública, SL (IEP) (Valencia) (represented by: A. Haegeman, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the decision (informal letter) dated 1 August 2014 and debit note No 3241401420 dated 5 August 2014;

               —

               order the other party to annul its debit note No 3241401420 dated 5 August 2014 on the ground that it is contrary to contractual, legal and regulatory provisions;

               —

               declare the decision (informal letter) dated 1 August 2014 and debit note No 3241401420 dated 5 August 2014 contrary to the defendant’s contractual obligations and declare them null and void;

               —

               at the very least, declare that the claim in debit note No 3241401420 is unfounded;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the amount of debit note No 3241401420;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, without prejudice to the parties’ rights, appoint an expert, pursuant to Articles 63 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure;

               —

               dismiss any claim by the other party for payment of that debit note No 3241401420 and, in so far as is necessary, order it to repay the applicant any amount whose payment the Commission obtained either directly or by set-off, including the principal amount, the interest thereon and any associated costs;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, and to the extent that the breaches of contract committed by the other party caused damage to the applicant, order the other party to compensate the applicant, in particular and in so far as payments or set-offs from the applicant were obtained, by ordering the other party to repay those amounts;

               —

               declare that the applicant’s latter head of claim is limited provisionally to 1 EUR from an amount of EUR 82  378,81, subject to increase or decrease during the proceedings, and subject to compensatory interest, at the very least the applicable interest rate agreed in the contract, namely 3,65 %;

               —

               order the other party to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of contractual obligations, the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence, the general principle of the duty of care and of proportionality, misuse of powers, breach of the obligation to act dutifully and in good faith in the performance of the contracts, breach of Article II.19.3 of the ‘grant agreement’ and breach of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the general rules on the interpretation of contracts, in so far as the decision requiring repayment of a part of the amount paid to the ECFA is based only on the results of the audit, without any other justification.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the audi alteram partem rule and of the rights of the defence, of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the general rules on the interpretation of contracts, in so far as the ECFA was not invited again to submit the documents in order to establish the eligibility of the contested costs even though the applicant was led to believe that it could do so at a later stage of the procedure;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of contractual obligations, the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence, the general principle of the duty of care and of proportionality, misuse of powers, breach of the obligation to act dutifully and in good faith in the performance of the contracts and breach of the terms of the contract governing the subsidy contract entered into and, more specifically, breach of Article II.14 of the ‘grant agreement’, the general principles governing audits, the principle of the performance in good faith of the contracts and the prohibition on the unfair application of contractual terms and of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the general rules on the interpretation of contracts.
               The applicants claim that the defendants assume the right to interpret the contract in question as they see fit and without complying with the express provisions laying down the obligation to subsidise the services actually rendered and the eligible costs.


title: Case T-465/04: Action brought on 25 November 2004 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/26

         Action brought on 25 November 2004 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-465/04)
   (2005/C 57/45)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 November 2004 by European Dynamics SA, Athens, Greece, represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Commission (DG Fisheries), of 15 September 2004, evaluating the applicant's bid as not successful and awarding the contract to the incumbent contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to re-evaluate the tender submitted by the applicant;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant company filed a bid in response to the Commission's call for tenders FISH/2004/02 (1) for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate - General for Fisheries. By the contested decision this bid was rejected and the contract awarded to another bidder, which was also the incumbent contractor.
   In support of its application for annulment of that decision the applicant claims first of all that the Commission violated the principle of non-discrimination and of free competition. The applicant considers that the Commission's decision to impose a two month familiarisation period unfavourably discriminated in favour of the incumbent, for whom the familiarisation period was obviously not necessary. In the same context the applicant also contends that delivery of information to the tenderers regarding the software application subject to the call for tenders was insufficient whilst of course the incumbent had unlimited access to such information.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission violated the Financial Regulation (2) as well as Directive 92/50 (3) by using evaluation criteria that were not included in the call for tenders, namely the size of the applicant's proposed team, which was considered excessive by the Commission, and the average number of years of experience of the applicant's team, which the Commission considered was lower than that of the team proposed by the successful tenderer.
   The applicant further considers that the Commission committed manifest errors of appreciation in its evaluation of the applicant's tender and in particular in its assessments of the expertise of its proposed team and of the applicant's financial offer where, according to the applicant, the Commission mistakenly assumed that all sixteen persons proposed by the applicant would be working in parallel for the whole of the project.
   The applicant also invokes a violation, by the Commission, of its obligation, under Article 253 EC, to state reasons and a failure to provide pertinent information requested by the applicant on the grounds for the rejection of its bid. The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the principle of good administration and diligence by acting with significant delay and by not offering adequate answers to the applicant's requests for information prior to the submission of the bids.

      (1)  OJ 2004/S 73 – 061407

      (2)  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, 16/09/2002, p.1

      (3)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 209, 24/07/1992, p. 1


title: Case C-366/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc., United Airlines Inc. v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Directive 2008/101/EC — Inclusion of aviation activities in that scheme — Validity — Chicago Convention — Kyoto Protocol — EU-United States Air Transport Agreement — Principles of customary international law — Legal effects thereof — Whether they may be relied upon — Extraterritoriality of European Union law — Meaning of ‘charges’ , ‘fees’ and ‘taxes’ )

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc., United Airlines Inc. v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
   (Case C-366/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2008/101/EC - Inclusion of aviation activities in that scheme - Validity - Chicago Convention - Kyoto Protocol - EU-United States Air Transport Agreement - Principles of customary international law - Legal effects thereof - Whether they may be relied upon - Extraterritoriality of European Union law - Meaning of ‘charges’, ‘fees’ and ‘taxes’)
   2012/C 49/12
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc., United Airlines Inc.

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

      Interveners: International Air Transport Association (IATA), National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC), Aviation Environment Federation, WWF-UK, European Federation for Transport and Environment, Environmental Defense Fund, Earthjustice

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity of Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (OJ 2009 L 8, p. 3) — Whether certain rules and/or provisions of international law may be relied upon

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The only principles and provisions of international law, from among those mentioned by the referring court, that can be relied upon, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings and for the purpose of assessing the validity of Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, are:

                           —

                           first, within the limits of review as to a manifest error of assessment attributable to the European Union regarding its competence, in the light of those principles, to adopt that directive:

                                       —

                                       the principle that each State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its airspace,

                                       —

                                       the principle that no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty, and

                                       —

                                       the principle which guarantees freedom to fly over the high seas,

                           —

                           and second:

                                       —

                                       Articles 7 and 11(1) and (2)(c) of the Air Transport Agreement concluded on 25 and 30 April 2007 between the United States of America, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, as amended by the Protocol, and

                                       —

                                       Article 15(3) of that agreement, read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3(4) thereof.

               2.

               Examination of Directive 2008/101 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect its validity.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


C 166/12              EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.5.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-251/96 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/20)                                                    (98/C 166/24)
By order of 29 October 1997, the President of the Court          By order of 29 January 1998 the President of the Sixth
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the               Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
removal from the register of Case C-251/96: (Reference           Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di       Case C-305/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Rovigo): Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Cordella.         the Cour du Travail, Mons): UniversiteÂ Catholique de
                                                                 Louvain v Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez.
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-224/96 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-325/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/21)
                                                                                (98/C 166/25)
By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the               By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-224/96: Promotion            removal from the register of Case C-325/97: Commission
LeÂopold SA v European Parliament.                               of the European Communities v Federal Republic of
                                                                 Germany.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/22)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-238/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/26)
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              By order of 18 February 1998 the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (reference for a       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Arif           removal from the register of Case C-238/97: Commission
Altiney v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                              of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/96 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-142/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/27)
                        (98/C 166/23)
                                                                 By order of 3 March 1998 the President of        the Sixth
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the           European
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Communities has ordered the removal from the    register of
removal from the register of Case C-142/97: Commission           Case     C-146/96:     Commission     of  the    European
of the European Communities v Italian Republic.                  Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.


title: Case C-465/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/98/EC — Re-use of public sector information — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/16

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-465/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/98/EC - Re-use of public sector information - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 297/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of 8 November 1995 in the case of Landboden-Agrardienste GmbH & Co. KG v. Finanzamt Calau (Case C-384/95)

text:
No C 31 / 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    graphics     cards         for   automatic data-processing
                                                                               machines ?
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or              3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 92/109/EEC ( 1 ), of 14 December                       Under which other customs tariff heading should
                                                                               products such as 'vista boards' ( 1 .) be classified ?
      1992 on the manufacture and the placing on the market
      of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of
      narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the provisions of that Directive and Article 5 of
      the EC Treaty;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 1 December 1995
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                        in the case of Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical
                                                                                Limited
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                  Case C-383 /95 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                             ( 96/C 31 /28 )
in Case C-360/95 ( 2 ); the timelimit for transposition expired
on 1 July 1993 .                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(') OJ No L 370, 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                               Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
( 2 ) OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 , p . 7.                                1 December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                         on 7 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical Limited on the
                                                                         following questions :
                                                                         ( a ) Where, in the performance of an employment contract,
                                                                                an employee carries out his work in more than one
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     country, what are the criteria according to which he
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 November                            should be regarded as habitually carrying out his work
1995 in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik Vertriebs                          in one of those countries, within the meaning of
                  GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen                                 Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention ?
                           ( Case C-382/95 )
                              ( 96/C 31 /27 )                            ( b ) Is the fact that he spends most of his working time in
                                                                                one of those countries, or the fact that he spends more
                                                                                of his working time in another country or countries,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          decisive or significant in that regard ?
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzof
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 November 1995 , which was                   (c ) Is the fact that the employee resides or maintains in one
received at the Court Registry on 7 December 1995 , for a                       of those countries an office from which he prepares or
preliminary ruling in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik                      administers his work outside that country, and to
Vertriebs GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen on the                                  which he returns after every trip which he makes in
following questions:                                                            connection with his work, of significance in that
                                                                                regard ?
1 . Must Note 5 ( B ) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs
      Tariff ( combined nomenclature 1988 to 1991 ) be
      interpreted as meaning that image processing, which the
      'vista boards' more particularly described in the grounds
      of the order can perform, is to be regarded as a 'specific
      function' within the meaning of that provision, that is to         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
      say as a function other than data processing, so that such         des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of
      goods are not classifiable under heading No 8471 ?                 8 November 1995 in the case of Landboden-Agrardienste
                                                                                GmbH & Co . KG v. Finanzamt Calau
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative :                                             ( Case C-3 84/95 )
      Must heading No 8543 ( in this instance : subheading                                              ( 96/C 31 /29 )
      No 8543 80 80 of the combined nomenclature 1991 ,
      subheading        No      8543 80 90    of   the   combined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      nomenclature 1988 to 1990 ) be interpreted as meaning              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des
      that the term '( other) electrical machines . . . having            Landes Brandenburg (Finance Court, Land of Brandenburg)
      individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere           of 8 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
      in this Chapter' covers products such as 'vista boards'             Registry on 8 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
       ( 1 .) even if such boards are by their nature capable of         case of Landboden-Agrardienste GmbH & Co . KG v.
       being used not only for image processing but also as               Finanzamt Calau on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 2 . 96                 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 31 /15
( a ) Must a taxable farmer, who in 1990 extensified his                           conditions to be met by ornamental plant
        potato production in Brandenburg ( Federal Republic of                     propagating material and ornamental plants
        Germany) to such an extent that at least 20 % of his                       pursuant to Council Directive 91 /682/EEC, and
        potato crop was not harvested by him, be regarded as
        having supplied a service to a specific recipient within                — Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC (4 ) of 2 July 1993
        the meaning of Article 6 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Council                         setting out the schedules indicating the conditions to
        Directive of 17 May 1977 ( 77/388/EEC ) on the                              be met by vegetable propagating and planting
        harmonization of the laws of the Member States                             material, other than seed pursuant to Council
        relating to turnover taxes ( J ) ('the Sixth Directive')?                  Directive 92/33/EEC ,
( b ) Does a subsidy paid for the extensification of potato                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
        production on the basi? of the decree of 13 July 1990                   obligations under the Treaty.
        promoting the extensification of agricultural
        production constitute a payment chargeable to tax                  2 . order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs of the
        pursuant to Article 11 . A ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth                     proceedings .
        Directive ?
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 ( c ) If the answer to question ( a ) is in the affirmative:
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
        Does the service supplied qualify for taxation at the              in Case C-360/95 ( 5 ); the timelimit for transposition expired
        reduced rate provided for by the fourth sentence of                on 1 January 1994 (Directive 92/45/EEC ) and 31 December
        Article 12 ( 3 ) ( a ) in conjunction with Annex H to the          1993 respectively.
        Sixth Directive ?
                                                                           (•)  OJ No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
 ( 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                (2 ) OJ No  L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                           (3)  OJ No  L 250, 7 . 10 . 1993 , p. 9 .
                                                                           (4)  OJ No  L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .
                                                                           (5)  OJ No  C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 , p . 7.
 Action brought on 8 December 1995 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                   Republic                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                             ( Case C-385/95 )                             Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 29
                                ( 96/C 31 /30 )                            September 1995 in the case of Süleyman Eker v. Land
                                                                           Baden-Württemberg, parties to the proceedings: ( 1 )
                                                                           Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, ( 2 )
 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                     Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses bei den Gerichten
  before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               der       allgemeinen          Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit     in
  8 December 1995 by the Commission of the European                                                Baden-Württemberg
  Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
  Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                                            ( Case C-386/95 )
  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its                                            96/C 31 /31
  Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                              European Communities by an order of the First Senate of the
                                                                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court )
  1 . declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                   of 29 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
        period all the measures necessary to comply fully with              Registry on 11 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
        the following directives :                                          the case of Siileyman Eker v. Land Baden-Wiirttemberg,
                                                                            parties to the proceedings : ( 1 ) Oberbundesanwalt beim
        — Council Directive 92/45/EEC ( ] ) of 16 June 1992 on              Bundesverwaltungsgericht, ( 2 ) Vertreter des offentlichen
            public health and animal health problems relating to            Interesses bei den Gerichten der allgemeinen Verwaltungs
            the killing of wild game and the placing on the                 gerichtsbarkeit in Baden-Wiirttemberg, on the following
            market of wild-game meat,                                       question:
        — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC ( 2 ) of 23 June                   Does a Turkish worker fulfil the requirements of the first
            1993 setting out the schedule indicating the                    indent of Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of the
            conditions to be met by fruit plant propagating                 EEC/Turkey Association Council even if during the first
            material and fruit plants intended for fruit                    year of employment he has, with the permission of the
            production,         pursuant     to  Council     Directive      national authorities , worked without interruption but for
            92/34/EEC ,                                                     different employers and wishes to continue employment
                                                                            with his last employer ?
        — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC ( 3 ) of 23 June
             1993 setting out the schedule indicating the


title: Case T-739/14: Action brought on 24 October 2014  — Prominvestbank v Council

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/42

         Action brought on 24 October 2014 — Prominvestbank v Council
   (Case T-739/14)
   (2015/C 007/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Prominvestbank (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga and J. Iriate Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and declare that the restrictive measures imposed by that provision do not apply to it;

               —

               annul Article 5 of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and declare that the restrictive measures imposed by that provision do not apply to it;

               —

               annul replacement Article 1 provided for by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and declare that the restrictive measures imposed by that provision do not apply to it;

               —

               annul replacement Article 5 provided for by Council Regulation No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and declare that the restrictive measures imposed by that provision do not apply to it;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those already put forward in Case T-737/14 (Vnesheconombank v Council).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2001 in Case T-230/99: Hans McAuley v Council of the European Union (Officials — Appointment by way of promotion — Annulment — Examination of the comparative merits — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
15.9.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/7
4.    Orders the applicant to pay the Commission the sum of                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      EUR 49 844, plus interest at an annual rate of 7 % as from
      31 January 1999.                                                                              of 7 June 2001
5.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of       in Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG v
      the costs incurred by the Commission.                                       Commission of the European Communities (1)
6.    Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs.                (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid incompatible
                                                                          with the common market — Time-limit for investigation —
                                                                          Act of Accession — Declaration No 31 — Statement of
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.99.
                                                                                reasons)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-187/99, Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG, established
                                                                          in Vienna (Austria), represented by W. Barfuß and
                                                                          H. Wollmann, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
                          of 14 June 2001                                 bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agents: M. Erhart and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
                                                                          annulment of Commission Decision 1999/342/EC of 30 Sep-
in Case T-143/99 Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the
                                                                          tember 1998 concerning aid which Austria plans to grant to
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          Agrana Stärke- GmbH to build and convert starch production
                                                                          facilities (OJ 1999 L 131, p. 61) — the Court of First Instance
(EAGGF — Cancellation of financial assistance —                           (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh,
          Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88)                      President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and
                                                                          N. Forwood, Judges; G. Hertzig, Administrator, for the Regis-
                                                                          trar, has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it:
                          (2001/C 259/08)
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                Commission.
In Case T-143/99, Hortiplant SAT, established in Amposta
(Spain), represented by C. Fernández Vicién and Iglesias Roa,            (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.
lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Visaggio and J. Guerra Fernández) — application
for the annulment of the Commission decision of 4 March
1999 to cancel the financial assistance granted to Hortiplant
SAT by Commission Decision C(92) 3125 of 3 December
1992 concerning the granting of aid from the EAGGF
Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
No 4256/88 in the context of a project entitled ‘Initiative in
the form of a pilot project to demonstrate a new and                                               of 14 June 2001
highly efficient method of producing seedlings, as applied to
ornamental and woodland species’ — the Court of First                     in Case T-230/99: Hans McAuley v Council of the Euro-
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, Presi-                                          pean Union (1)
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                        (Officials — Appointment by way of promotion — Annul-
                                                                          ment — Examination of the comparative merits — Manifest
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                                 error of assessment)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the                                  (2001/C 259/10)
      Commission, including those in the proceedings for interim
      relief.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                          In Case T-230/99: Hans McAuley, an official of the Council
                                                                          of the European Union, residing in Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                          (Belgium), represented by J-N. Louis, G-F. Parmentier and
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.9.2001
V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,             regard — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and               composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
M. Bauer) — application for annulment of the decisions of the             Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June
Secretary General of the Council of 15 December 1998                      2001, in which it:
rejecting the applicant’s applications for the posts of Head of
the English Language Division of Language Service of the                  1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for an order requiring the
‘Translation and Production of Documents’ Directorate of the                    Commission to adopt certain measures and the claim for other
‘Administration — Protocol’ Directorate-General and Language                    or further relief;
Adviser in that division and appointing B and K to those two
posts respectively — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                  2.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R.M. Moura                        1 in compensation for the non-material damage;
Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                                    3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.    annulled the decisions of the Council of 15 December 1998           4.    Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs,
      appointing K to the post of language adviser in the English               half of the applicant’s costs.
      Language Division and rejecting the applicant’s application for
      that post.                                                          (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.00.
2.    dismissed the application as inadmissible.
3.    ordered the Council to bear its own costs and to pay 50 % of
      those incurred by the applicant.
4.    ordered the applicant to bear 50 % of his own costs.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 June 2001
(1) OJ No C 6 of 8.1.00.
                                                                          in Case T-330/99 Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Community Customs Code — Remission of import duties
                                                                          — Special situation — Fraud in connection with an external
                                                                                Community transit operation)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2001/C 259/12)
                          of 20 June 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-243/99 Marie-Laurence Buisson v Commission
               of the European Communities (1)                            In Case T-330/99, Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH, a
                                                                          company in judicial liquidation, established in Flensburg
(Officials — Open competition — Refusal to admit to the                   (Germany), represented by A. Suhr, lawyer, against Com-
written tests — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting                   mission of the European Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer
a candidate — Time-limit — Legitimate expectation —                       and M. Núñez-Müller) — application for annulment of the
                           Compensation)                                  Commission decision of 22 July 1999 (reference: REM 22/98)
                                                                          which stated that the remission of import duties sought was
                                                                          not justified — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                          (2001/C 259/11)                                 composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 22 July 1999 (reference:
                                                                                REM 22/98) which found that the remission of import duties
In Case T-243/99 Marie-Laurence Buisson, residing in Ankara
                                                                                sought was not justified;
(Turkey), represented by I. Forrester QC, E. Wright, Barrister,
and F.M. Murray, Barrister, with an address for service in                2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay nine
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-                         tenths of the costs incurred by the applicant, which shall bear
ties (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment of the                     one tenth of its own costs.
decision of 13 July 1999 rejecting the applicant’s request for
reconsideration of the decision of the selection board not to
admit her to the written tests forming part of the selection              (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.00.
procedure in Open Competition COM/A/10/98, and for
compensation for the non-material damage incurred in that


title: Case T-96/16: Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/53

         Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)
   (Case T-96/16)
   (2016/C 156/71)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Solenis Technologies LP (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’ — Application for registration No 13 355 508

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2015 in Case R 613/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision insofar as it refuses the registration of EU trade mark application No 13 355 508 ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

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


title: Case C-110/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 February 2016 — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 February 2016 — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa
   (Case C-110/16)
   (2016/C 175/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Lg Costruzioni Srl

      Respondent: Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

      Questions referred

   Is a provision such as that in Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 16 April 2006, which allows participation by an undertaking with a ‘named’ design engineer who, since he is not himself a tenderer, may not, according to national case-law, rely on the capacity of others, compatible with Article 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004? (1)

      (1)  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 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-341/13 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Groupe Léa Nature v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO’BiO ētic) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SO’BiO ētic — Earlier EU and national word marks SO…? — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Groupe Léa Nature v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO’BiO ētic)
   (Case T-341/13 RENV) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SO’BiO ētic - Earlier EU and national word marks SO…? - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 239/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Groupe Léa Nature SA (Périgny, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája, Agent)

      The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2013 (Case R 203/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Debonair Trading Internacional and Groupe Léa Nature.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders Groupe Léa Nature SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by the intervener before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-265/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Serrano Aranda v OHIM — Burg Groep (LE LANCIER)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/46

         Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Serrano Aranda v OHIM — Burg Groep (LE LANCIER)
   (Case T-265/09)
   2009/C 205/85
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Enrique Serrano Aranda (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Burg Groep BV (Bergen, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2009 in Case R-366/2008-1.

               —

               On the basis of that annulment, uphold the opposition and implement the legal consequences arising therefrom by rejecting Community trade mark application 3 343 365 in its entirety.

               —

               Order OHIM and any intervening parties to pay the costs of these proceedings, should they be opposed, and reject the forms of order which OHIM and the intervening parties seek.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Burg Groep B.V.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word component ‘LE LANCIER’ (Application No 3 343 365) for goods in Classes 29 and 30.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Enrique Serrano Aranda.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘EL LANCERO’ No 838 740 for goods in Class 30; Spanish figurative mark No 941 979 containing the word component ‘EL LANCERO’ for goods in Class 30; Spanish word mark No 943 767‘EL LANCERO’ for goods in Class 31, and Spanish word mark No 1 806 835‘El LANCERO’ for goods in Class 29.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-334/03: Action brought on 30 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 251/4                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
     quantity of telephone numbers and the retrospective               basic telecommunications networks, is exempted from those
     imposition of fees in respect of this old stock is not            charges which are, however, payable by every other operator.
     possible for reasons of national law?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:                     The more favourable treatment reserved for PT Comunicações
                                                                       compared to other operators as regards the economic condi-
                                                                       tions for the granting of rights of way is not objectively
2.   In such a situation may the new entrants to the market,           justified. Reserving to PT Comunicações treatment which
     irrespective of the level of their other entry costs and          differs from that afforded to other operators without any
     without an associated analysis of their competitive               objective justification whatsoever constitutes unequal treat-
     chances in comparison with the dominant undertaking,              ment in respect of the granting of rights of way to PT
     be charged for the allocation of a telephone number a             Comunicações, which amounts to infringement of Article 4d
     one-off fee in the amount of a particular percentage (in          of the Directive.
     this case 0,1 %) of the estimated annual sales which can
     be attained if the telephone number is passed on to a final
     customer?                                                         (1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competi-
                                                                           tion in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192 of
                                                                           24 July 1990, p. 10).
(1) OJ L 117, p. 15.                                                   (2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
                                                                           Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
                                                                           competition in telecommunications markets (OJ L 74 of 22 March
                                                                           1996, p. 13).
Action brought on 30 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Portuguese
                              Republic
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                          (Case C-334/03)                              Ordinario di Torino — Sezione del Giudice per le
                                                                       Indagini Preliminari — by order of that Court of 15 July
                          (2003/C 251/08)                                          2003 in the case against Fabrizio Barra
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                                     (Case C-337/03)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                                (2003/C 251/09)
represented by A. M. Alves Vieira and S. Rating, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario
                                                                       di Torino — Sezione del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari —
                                                                       (District Court, Turin — Preliminary Investigations Section) of
(1)   Declare that, by failing to ensure in practice the transpo-      15 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 1st August
      sition into national law of Article 4d of Directive              2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case against Fabrizio
      90/388/EEC (1) in the latest version amended by                  Barra on the following questions:
      Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Portuguese Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations; and
(2)   Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                  1.    Must Article 44(3)(g) of the Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6
                                                                             of the first directive (Directive 68/151/EEC (1)) and
                                                                             Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the fourth directive (Directive
                                                                             78/660/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 83/349 (3) and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Directive 90/605 (4)), be interpreted as meaning that that
                                                                             legislation precludes a law of a Member State according to
                                                                             which it is not a punishable offence for companies to
Article 13 of Law No 91/97 exempts the operators of basic                    infringe their obligations concerning disclosure and the
telecommunications networks from the payment of fees for                     provision of accurate information where statements are
the installations of their networks and the granting of the                  made which, although intended to deceive members of the
necessary rights of access to the public domain. As a result                 public with a view to securing an unjust profit, are the
of that provision, PT Comunicações, being the sole operator of               consequence of estimated valuations which, taken indivi-