title: Case C-541/16: Action brought on 25 October 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/30

         Action brought on 25 October 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-541/16)
   (2017/C 006/37)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(6) Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (1) on common rules for access to the international road haulage market;

               —

               order Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The Commission submits that Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 regulates exhaustively how hauliers may to carry out cabotage operations on the terms laid down in that article. The provision does not provide for a maximum number of loading and/or unloading sites within the same cabotage operation. The limit of a maximum of three cabotage operations does not mean that a cabotage operation must include a set number of loading and/or unloading sites.

               —

               Under the Danish rules cabotage can consist either of a number of loading sites or a number of unloading sites, but not both. The Danish rules preclude non-resident hauliers from carrying out cabotage operations consisting of a number of loading and unloading sites, which constitutes a restriction on how those hauliers may carry out cabotage operations in Denmark as provided for under Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72).


title: Case F-79/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2012 — Menidiatis v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Rejection of application — Implementation of the judgment annulling the decision — Reasonable time — Individual implementing measures — Loss of opportunity)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2012 — Menidiatis v Commission
   (Case F-79/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Rejection of application - Implementation of the judgment annulling the decision - Reasonable time - Individual implementing measures - Loss of opportunity)
   2013/C 46/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Menidiatis (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Civil Service — Application for the payment of an amount of compensation to the applicant for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered because of the failure to take measures to implement the judgment in Case F-128/07

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Menidiatis to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011, p. 47.


title: Case T-609/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)
   (Case T-609/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 123/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-106/17: Action brought on 17 February 2017 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/47

         Action brought on 17 February 2017 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission
   (Case T-106/17)
   (2017/C 112/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (New York, New York, United States), JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (Columbus, Ohio, United States), J.P. Morgan Services LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose, QC, J. Boyd, M. Lester, D. Piccinin and D. Heaton, Barristers, and B. Tormey, N. French, N. Frey and D. Das, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission decision C(2016) 8530 final, in case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives — (the ‘Decision’), of 7 December 2016, in so far as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the penalty imposed on the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to show that the applicants’ conduct pursued the object of manipulating EURIBOR tenors or EONIA (benchmark interest rates); the evidence shows that the applicants did not pursue any anti-competitive object within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (‘Article 101’).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that, further or alternatively, the Commission erred in law in finding that the object of the alleged manipulation of EURIBOR tenors or EONIA is an object of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 101.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the challenged decision does not find, and the Commission cannot now argue or establish, any other anti-competitive object against the applicants than manipulating EURIBOR tenors or EONIA.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging that, in the alternative, the Commission has failed to establish that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement. In particular, the conduct found by the Commission to infringe Article 101 did not pursue a single aim; alternatively the applicants were not aware of the infringing conduct of the other parties and could not reasonably have foreseen it; and alternatively the applicants did not intend to contribute by their conduct to a common plan with an anti-competitive object.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law alleging that the Commission has acted contrary to the fundamental principles of EU law, good administration, the presumption of innocence, and the applicants’ rights of defence, by having pre-judged the case against them in the way it applied the ‘hybrid’ settlement process, and by expressions of pre-judgment by Commissioner Almunia.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law alleging that, further or alternatively, the Commission has erred in calculating the fine imposed on the applicants in a number of ways and the Court should reduce it. The Commission (a) should have applied greater mitigation and lower gravity and ‘entry fee’ adjustments to reflect the applicants’ peripheral and different role as found by the Commission; (b) failed to apply the same method for calculating value of sales to each party, with the result that the applicants have been treated less favourably without objective justification; (c) should have applied a greater discount in relation to the applicants’ cash receipts figures to reflect their relative economic strength; and (d) should not have included EONIA sales in its value of sales calculations.


title: Case C-370/06: Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-370/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/62)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Indirect taxes — Directive 69/335/EEC — Raising of capital — Tax on stock exchange transactions — Tax on the delivery of bearer securities)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Indirect taxes - Directive 69/335/EEC - Raising of capital - Tax on stock exchange transactions - Tax on the delivery of bearer securities)
   (2004/C 228/14)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and C. Giolito) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat) — application for a declaration that:

               —

               by imposing the tax on stock exchange transactions on applications made in Belgium for new securities issued when a company or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue, and

               —

               by imposing the tax on the delivery of bearer securities on the physical delivery of bearer securities relating to Belgian or foreign Government stocks, in the case of new securities issued when a company or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue,

         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; Advocate General: A. Tizzano; for the Registrar: M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that,
               by imposing the tax on stock exchange transactions on applications made in Belgium for new securities issued when a company or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue, and
               by imposing the tax on the delivery of bearer securities on the physical delivery of bearer securities relating to Belgian or foreign Government stocks, in the case of new securities issued when a company or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue,
               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-377/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Request for a preliminary ruling — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’  — Tribunal Arbitral Tributário — Directive 69/335/EEC — Articles 4 and 7 — Increase of the share capital of a capital company — Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984  — That stamp duty subsequently abolished, and then re-introduced)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-377/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Tribunal Arbitral Tributário - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 4 and 7 - Increase of the share capital of a capital company - Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984 - That stamp duty subsequently abolished, and then re-introduced))
   2014/C 282/21
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 4(1)(c) and 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding the reintroduction by a Member State of capital duty on increases of share capital of a company falling under the first of those provisions, which were subject to such duty on 1 July 1984, but which were later exempted from that duty.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-119/03: Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
10.5.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Action brought on 17 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
France was required to transpose and apply the provision
referred to in the application with effect from 1 January 2000.                                       (Case C-118/03)
It appears from the replies submitted of the French authorities
that, with the exception of numbers which are free of                                                 (2003/C 112/29)
charge (‘freephone numbers’) and of shared-cost numbers, the
remaining non-geographic numbers are not covered by the
measures which have been established.
                                                                            An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
( 1) Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council       ties on 17 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
     of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with          Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, legal advisor, and
     regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through      Hans Støvlbæk, of its legal service, with an address for service
     application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP)          in Luxembourg.
     — OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 32.
( 2) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 37.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to implement
                                                                                Commission Directive 2000/37/EC ( 1) of 5 June 2000
                                                                                amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council
                                                                                Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal
                                                                                products or by failing to inform the Commission of those
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                            provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
Genova — Prima sezione civile by order of that Court of                           fulfil its obligations under that directive;
10 March 2003 in the civil proceedings brought by
Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero dell’Ambiente and
                                                                            2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
              Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
                          (Case C-115/03)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2003/C 112/28)                                   The period for implementing the directive expired on 5 Decem-
                                                                            ber 2001.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ L 139, 10.6.2000, p. 25.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova
— Prima sezione civile (Genoa District Court, First Civil
Chamber) of 10 March 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 17 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the civil
proceedings brought by Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero
dell’Ambiente and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri on the
following question:                                                         Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the French Republic
Does the obligation under Article 4 of Directive 91/689/                                              (Case C-119/03)
EEC ( 1) apply to all producers of hazardous waste (including
dental surgeons’ practices) or merely to producers of hazardous
                                                                                (2003/C 112/30)
waste whose business is organised in the form of an undertak-
ing or institution?
                                                                            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
( 1) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 March
                                                                            2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/18                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     Action brought on 19 March 2003 by the Commission of
the Court should:                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                         (Case C-122/03)
      Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 on
      the transparency of financial relations between Member
      States and public undertakings as well as on financial                                         (2003/C 112/32)
      transparency within certain undertakings (1) or, in any
      event, by failing to notify them to the Commission,
      France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
—     order France to pay the costs.                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by H. Støvlbæk and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 31 January              The applicant claims that the Court should:
2001.
                                                                           1.    Declare that, by imposing, pursuant to Article R. 5142-
( 1) OJ L 193 of 29 July 2002, p. 78.                                            15 of the Public Health Code, on traders importing or
                                                                                distributing in France medicinal products which are
                                                                                already covered by a marketing authorisation for the
                                                                                French or Community market the requirement that they
                                                                                submit, at the request of the monitoring authorities,
                                                                                either a certified copy issued by the French agency for
Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of                             health products sanitary safety (FAHPSS) of the French
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                            marketing authorisation or of the registration of the
                                                                                medicinal product, or a document issued by the FAHPSS
                           (Case C-120/03)                                       attesting to the fact that the imported medicinal product
                                                                                has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the
                           (2003/C 112/31)                                       European Community, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the EC Treaty;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                  2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Banks and J.L. Buendía Sierra, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           So far as concerns the importation into France of pharmaceuti-
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                           cal products already covered by a marketing authorisation for
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                           the French or Community market, Article R. 5142-15 of the
      Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           Public Health Code requires the submission at the request of
      the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection
                                                                           customs officers of either a certified copy of the marketing
      of designs or, in any event, by failing to communicate
                                                                           authorisation or of the registration of the medicinal product
      them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                           or a document attesting to the fact that the imported medicinal
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                           product has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         European Community, each of those documents being issued
                                                                           by the FAHPSS.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The effects of that provision on traders wishing to import and
                                                                           distribute pharmaceutical products in France may be resumed
The period prescribed for implementation of the directive                  as follows: (i) formalities, costs and the time entailed by the
expired on 28 October 2001.                                                granting procedure are imposed on traders which they are
                                                                           obliged to bear, on pain of sanctions, throughout its term; (ii)
( 1) OJEC L 289 of 28 October 1998, p. 28.                                 those same traders are obliged to be constantly in possession
                                                                           of documents which could be potentially numerous and
                                                                           voluminous.


               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/15

         Removal from the register of Case C-258/03 (1)

   (2004/C 201/32)
   By order of 17 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-258/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 6.9.2003.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kriminalret, Frederikshavn, by letter of 14 February 1997 in the case of the Anklagemyndighed v. Ditlev Bluhme (Case C-67/97)

text:
No C 108/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                              5 . 4 . 97
Maurício Martins Pechim and Maria da Luz Lima Barros                        beekeeping constitutes one of the few forms of gainful
Raposo Pechim on the following questions:                                   activity by reason of the island's special flora and high
                                                                            proportion of uncultivated and extensively used land ?
(a ) Must the BFE ( Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA) be
      regarded as an 'undertaking' and in particular 'a               2 . If a Member State can introduce such rules, the Court
      public undertaking', within the meaning of Articles 90                is requested to describe in general the conditions
      and 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                                        governing those rules and in particular to answer the
                                                                            following questions:
( b ) May the advantage which the BFE enjoys over its
      competitors be interpreted as being 'State aid' within                ( a ) Can a Member State introduce such rules as
      the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                             described in 1 on the ground that the rules concern
                                                                                solely such an island as described and that the
(c ) Must such advantages be taken to be restrictions to                            effect of the rules is therefore geographically
      the freedom to provide services within the                                    limited ?
      Community, within the meaning of Article 59 of the
      Treaty of Rome ?                                                    . ( b) Can a Member State introduce such rules as
                                                                                described in 1 if the reason for those rules lies in
( d ) Do Articles 59, 90 ( 1 ), and 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty of                       the desire to protect the bee species Apis mellifera
      Rome have direct effect and may they be relied upon                           mellifera against eradication, an objective which,
      in the present proceedings ?                                                  in the Member State 's opinion, can be attained by
                                                                                excluding all other bee species from the island in
( e ) Do the rules of the Treaty of Rome take precedence                            question ?
      over and negate any conflicting national law ?
                                                                                In the criminal proceedings underlying this order
                                                                                for reference, the accused:
                                                                                (i)      disputes that there is at all any such bee
                                                                                species as Apis mellifera mellifera and submits
                                                                                that the bees at present to be found on Laeso
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kriminalret,                                       are a mixture of different bee species;
Frederikshavn, by letter of 14 February 1997 in the case
           of the Anklagemyndighed v. Ditlev Bluhme                                 ( ii ) submits that the brown bees to be found on
                         ( Case C-67/97)                                                     Laes0 are not unique but are found in many
                                                                                parts of the world; and
                           ( 97/C 108/30 )
                                                                                ( iii ) submits that those bees are not threatened
                                                                                with eradication .
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by letter of 14 February 1997
 from the Kriminalret ( Criminal Court), Fredrikshavn,                              In its response, the Court is therefore requested to
 which was received at the Court of Registry on                                      indicate whether it is sufficient that the Member
  17 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                          State in question considers it appropriate or
 the Anklagemyndighed (Public Prosecution Department) v.                             necessary to introduce the rules as a step in
 Ditlev Bluhme on the following questions :                                          preserving the bee population in question, or
                                                                                whether it must be regarded as a further condition
                                  I                                                  that the bee species exists, and/or that it is unique,
                                                                                and/or that it is threatened with eradication if the
                                                                                import ban is not valid or cannot be enforced.
  Concerning the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC
  Treaty
                                                                              ( c ) If the grounds set out in points ( a ) or ( b ) cannot
                                                                                make it lawful to introduce such rules, can a
  1 . Can Article 30 be interpreted as meaning that a                                 combination of those grounds make it so lawful ?
       Member State may, under certain circumstances,
       introduce rules prohibiting the keeping — and
       consequently the importation — of all bees other than                                                  II
       bees belonging to the species Apis mellifera mellifera
       (brown Laeso bee ) with regard to a specific island in          Concerning Council Directive 91 /174/EEC of 25 March
       the country in question, for example, an island of              1991 laying down zootechnical and pedigree requirements
       114 km2, one half of which consists of country villages         for the marketing of pure-bred animals and amending
       and small ports, and is used for purposes of tourism or         Directives 77/504/EEC and 90/425/EEC (').
       agriculture, while the other half consists of
       uncultivated land, that is to say, plantations,
       moorland, meadows, tidal meadows, beaches and                   1 . Under what circumstances can a bee be a pure-bred
       dunes, which had on 1 January 1997 a population of                      animal within the meaning attached to those words by
       2 365 , and which is an island on which opportunities                   Article 2 of Directive 91/174/EEC ? Is a golden bee, for
       for gainful activity are in general limited but where                   example, a pure-bred animal ?
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97              fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 108/ 17
2 . What constitutes a zootechnical ground (Article 2 )?                  Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
3 . What constitutes a pedigree ground (Article 2 )?                                                          Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-71/97)
4 . Must Directive 91 /174/EEC be understood as meaning                                                ( 97/C 108/32 )
       that a Member State may, notwithstanding the
       Directive, ban the importation onto an island such as
       that described in Question 1 of Part I and the                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
        existence there of all bees other than bees belonging to          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        the species Apis mellifera mellifera }                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                          Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        If a Member State can do so under certain conditions,             address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        the Court is requested to set out those conditions .              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 85 , 5.4. 1991 , p . 37.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to designate zones considered
                                                                               to be vulnerable and by failing to notify such
                                                                               designations to the Commission, as provided for in
                                                                               Article    3   of    Council       Directive 91 /676/EEC    of
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission                            12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                  Belgium                                      agricultural sources ('), and by failing either to
                            ( Case C-68/ 97 )                                  establish or communicate to the Commission the code
                                                                               or codes of good agricultural practice provided for in
                              ( 97/C 108/31 )                                   Article 4 of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive,
 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
 on 18 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, acting                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
 Kirchberg.                                                                relied on in Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit expired on
                                                                           19 December 1993 .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
 — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
         within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
         administrative provisions necessary to comply fully
         with the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of
         14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
         Member States relating to insurance against civil
         liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles ( 1 ), and      Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
         in particular by failing to transpose into Belgian Law            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
         Article 5 thereof, or, in the alternative, by not                                                     Spain
         notifying the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of                                               ( Case C-72/97)
         Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                                           ( 97/C 108/33 )
         EC Treaty and the Directive,
  — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                            Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
  relied on in Case C-56197 (2); the time-limit expired on                  Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  31 December 1992.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   C ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990, p. 33 .
   (2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                              — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                or notify the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive


title: Case C-683/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-683/16)
   (2017/C 104/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände e.V.

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as precluding measures of a Member State in respect of waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction which are necessary in order to comply with the obligations of a Member State under Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (2) which have effects on the fishing vessels of other Member States, and by which professional sea fishing by means of fishing equipment that touches the seabed, as well as gillnets (‘trammel and gillnets’), is comprehensively prohibited in Natura 2000 sites?
               In particular:

                           (a)

                           Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the fishing techniques listed in the first question referred fall within the concept of ‘conservation measures’?

                           (b)

                           Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as meaning that fishing vessels of another Member State which sail under the flag of the Federal Republic of Germany also fall within the concept of ‘fishing vessels of other Member States’?

                           (c)

                           Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as meaning that such measures adopted by a Member State which merely promote the objectives listed in that Union legislation also fall within the concept of ‘meet[ing] the objectives of the relevant Union legislation’?

               2.

               Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as precluding measures of a Member State in respect of waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction which are necessary in order to comply with its obligations under Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability (3) with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage?

               3.

               Insofar as Question 1 and Question 2 are to be answered, either individually or cumulatively, in the negative:
               Does the exclusive competence of the European Union in the field of conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy pursuant to Article 3(1)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the adoption of the aforementioned measures by the Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

      (3)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.


title: Case C-637/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Laufen Austria AG v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of equal treatment — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Laufen Austria AG v European Commission
   (Case C-637/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 104/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Laufen Austria AG (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, abogada)

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

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Laufen Austria v Commission (T-411/10, EU:T:2013:443);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the claim made by Laufen Austria AG for reduction of the fine imposed;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-502/04: Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Stéphane Lopparelli against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/36

         Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Stéphane Lopparelli against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-502/04)
   (2005/C 57/62)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 December 2004 by Stéphane Lopparelli, residing in Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision on the award to the applicant of priority points for the 2003 promotion procedure and the decision not to include his name on the list of officials promoted to Grade A5 in that procedure;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of Articles 5, 7, 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the principle of correspondence between the grade and the post and the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects. Secondly, the applicant pleads that no consideration of the comparative merits of all the officials of the same grade was carried out on a basis of equality, in breach of Articles 5, 7, 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects.


title: Case C-455/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 December 2009 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC — Public supply and public works contracts — Review procedure against a contract award decision — Guarantee of effective review — Minimum period to be ensured between notification to the unsuccessful tenderers of the decision to award a contract and the signature of the contract concerned)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 December 2009 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-455/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC - Public supply and public works contracts - Review procedure against a contract award decision - Guarantee of effective review - Minimum period to be ensured between notification to the unsuccessful tenderers of the decision to award a contract and the signature of the contract concerned)
   2010/C 51/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — Infringement of Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14) — Obligation to provide under national law for an effective and rapid review procedure enabling unsuccessful tenderers to procure the annulment of a decision awarding a contract — Time-limits for bringing proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting Article 49 of Statutory Instrument No 329 of 2006 and Article 51 of Statutory Instrument No 50 of 2007, Ireland established the rules governing the notification of contracting authorities and entities award decisions and their reasoning to tenderers in such a way that by the time that tenderers are fully informed of the reasons for the rejection of their offer, the standstill period preceding the conclusion of the contract may already have expired, and that, by so doing, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Action brought on 14 May 1997 by Glenn Phillips against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-157/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/21
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                             protection — also recognized by Community law — that
                                                                     each time he should be forced to bring legal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (') OJ No L 340, 31 . 12. 1993 , p. 41 .
In the course of researching the authorization of a type of
genetically modified maize, the applicant, who is
managing editor of a juridico-political review, twice
submitted a written request to the Commission for access             Action brought on 14 May 1997 by Glenn Phillips against
to documents. Apart from a communication to the effect                       the Commission of the European Communities
that the first request (which had been addressed to the                                        ( Case T-157/97)
Commission 's office in the Federal Republic of Germany )
would be forwarded to the Commission in Brussels, which                                          ( 97/C 228/50 )
is responsible for such matters, the Commission did not
reply to the applicant's requests .                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
In the applicant's view, the Commission's inaction                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
constitutes, in accordance with Article 2 (4 ), second               Instance of the European Communities on 14 May 1997
subparagraph, of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom, a                 by Glenn Phillips, residing in Brussels, represented by
final rejection of the request for access to the documents           Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(a 'constructive refusal') against which an action for               service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
annulment may be brought under Article 173 of the EC                 Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Treaty by virtue of the Code of conduct concerning public
access to Council and Commission documents (Decision
93/730/EC ) ('). The constructive refusal to send the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant the documents requested contravenes the right
of access conferred by Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,                      — annul the Commission's decision of 22 July 1996
Euratom, since it is settled law that the applicant has a                 rejecting the applicant's request that it give
legitimate interest in the disclosure of information and the              consideration to the possible application of
Commission did not claim that this case constituted an                    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
exception; secondly, since the legal system of the great
majority of the Member States provides for access to such
                                                                     — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
documents, the Commission has also breached the general
                                                                          decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
legal principle of public access to documents held by the
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's complaint,
public authorities.
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
The applicant also argues that the Commission has
infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty since its failure to          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reply to the applicant's requests amounts to a constructive
refusal and therefore constitutes an individual measure
which must state the reasons on which it is based, and               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
hence a decision .                                                   Case T- 16/97 ( l ).
                                                                     (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant further maintains that the Commission has
breached the obligation laid down in Article 1 of Decision
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom to give reasons . Also, in view
of the close link between procedural rights and the
exercise of discretion, the Commission is guilty of a
misuse of powers, within the meaning of Article 173 of               Action brought on 15 May 1997 by Fabienne Gutmann
the EC Treaty.                                                       Vormus against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-158/97)
The applicant essentially relies on similar arguments in
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/51 )
support of his claim that the constructive refusal provided
for in Article 2 (4 ) of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom
should consequently be declared inapplicable, pursuant to                             (Language of the case: French)
Article 184 of the EC Treaty. The applicant asserts that he
has a special interest because it is to be expected that, as         An action against the Commission of the European
a journalist, he will again be confronted with the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Commission's administrative practice based on that rule,             Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1997
and it is contrary to the principle of effective legal               by Fabienne Gutmann-Vormus, residing in Brussels,


title: Case T-197/10: Action brought on 27 April 2010 — BVR v OHIM — Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppen Österreich)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/47

         Action brought on 27 April 2010 — BVR v OHIM — Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppen Österreich)
   (Case T-197/10)
   2010/C 179/82
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken eV (BVR) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rinke, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Austria Leasing GmbH (Frankfurt, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2010 (Case R 248/2009-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Austria Leasing GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppen Österreich’, in respect of services in Classes 35, 36 and 37.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BVR.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: inter alia, a figurative mark registered in Germany which contains the word element ‘Raiffeisen’, in respect of services in Classes 36, 39 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

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


title: Case C-287/02: Action brought on 9 August 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 233/17
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) dated 5 July 2002, which             Pleas in law and main arguments
was received at the Court Registry on 31 July 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Andrew Owusu and
1) N. B. Jackson (trading as Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas),
2) Mammee Bay Resorts Ltd, 3) Mammee Bay Club Ltd, 4) The               The Italian Government claims that, by adopting the contested
Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd, 5) Consulting Services              implementing regulation, the Commission has, de iure,
Ltd, 6) Town & Country Resorts Ltd, on the following                    accorded limited and inconsistent protection to ‘traditional
questions:                                                              terms’, in particular to Italian ‘traditional terms’, contrary to
                                                                        the guiding principles of the rules in the sector, as clarified in
                                                                        the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (2).
(1) Is it inconsistent with the Brussels Convention on Jurisdic-        This has not only prejudiced the efforts directed towards the
      tion and the Enforcement of Judgments 1968, where a               reclassification of Community produce, but also the interests
      Claimant contends that jurisdiction is founded on                 of producers and consumers, as recognised by the Treaty, the
      Article 2, for a court of a Contracting State to exercise a       protection of which constitutes the purpose of the common
      discretionary power, available under its national law, to         agricultural policy and of free competition.
      decline to hear proceedings brought against a person
      domiciled in that State in favour of the courts of a non-
      Contracting State:                                                (1 ) OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002
                                                                             of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, desig-
      (a)  if the jurisdiction of no other Contracting State                 nation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector prod-
           under the 1968 Convention is in issue;                            ucts (OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1).
                                                                        (2 ) OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of
                                                                             17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine.
      (b) if the proceedings have no other connecting factors
           to any other Contracting State?
(2) If the answer to question (1)(a) or (1)(b) is yes, is it
      consistent in all the circumstances or only in some and if
      so in which?
                                                                        Action brought on 9 August 2002 by the Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 25 July 2002 by the Italian Republic                                            (Case C-287/02)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2002/C 233/28)
                         (Case C-283/02)
                         (2002/C 233/27)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 9 August 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        represented by Lourdes Fraguas Gadea, Abogada del Estado,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European            Embassy, 4 - 6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
Communities on 25 July 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent and M. Fiorilli,
avvocato dello Stato.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —      annul the contested decision (1) as regards the financial
                                                                               corrections imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and
                                                                               contested by this action;
—     annul Article 24 and, to the extent of the complaints
      advanced to that effect, Annexes A and B of Commission
      Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 ( 1) of 29 April 2002.                —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Breach of Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC)                   —      annul Article 2 of the Commission’s decision of 5 June
       No 1663/95 (2): the Commission adopted the decision                        2002 concerning the fiscal exemptions and loans on
       which is the subject of this action, including certain                     preferential terms granted by Italy in favour of public-
       corrections differing from those which may be directly                     service undertakings in the capital of which the State
       inferred from the documents produced by the Kingdom                        holds a majority interest, which reads as follows:
       of Spain, thereby failing to observe the procedure laid
       down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95, which
       required it to wait for a reply from the Member State,                     ‘The three-year exemption from income tax provided for
       then to initiate a bilateral discussion to assess the                      by Article 3(70) of Law No 549 of 28 December 1995
       seriousness of the infringement and the harm caused to                     and by Article 66(14) of Decree-Law No 331 of 30 August
       the European Community, and, where appropriate, to                         1993, as converted into law by Law No 427 of 29 Octo-
       allow the Member State to take part in the conciliation                    ber 1993, and the advantages deriving from the loans
       procedure.                                                                 granted pursuant to Article 9a of Decree-Law No 318 of
                                                                                1 July 1986, as converted into law, with amendments, by
       As a result of that failure, Spain has been prevented from                 Law No 488 of 9 August 1986, in favour of joint-stock
       adducing evidence and from submitting the documenta-                       companies established pursuant to Law No 142 of 8 June
       tion necessary to justify the expenditure made, something                  1990 in the capital of which the State holds a majority
       which may be regarded as entailing a breach of the rights                  interest, constitute State aid within the meaning of
       of defence.                                                                Article 87(1) of the Treaty. The aid in question is not
                                                                                compatible with the common market.’
—      In the alternative: the figure to be corrected, in particular
       as regards the paying agency of Castilla-La Mancha, is
       wrong.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) Commission Decision of 12 June 2002 on the clearance of the
     accounts of Member States’ expenditure financed by the European
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee
     Section, for the 2001 financial year, OJ L 160 of 18.6.2002,
                                                                           The Italian Government maintains that the measures to which
     p. 28.                                                                the Commission’s decision relates could not be regarded as
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying           aid, at least at the time when they were adopted, and that,
     down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation         consequently, they may now be regarded as existing aid within
     (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the      the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/
     accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of 8.7.1995,        1999 (1).
     p. 6.
                                                                           Having regard to the factual and legal circumstances in
                                                                           which predominantly State-owned companies providing local
                                                                           services have been operating up until now — and, in particular,
                                                                           the system of exclusive rights which, in total compliance with
                                                                           the Treaty, has characterised the economic activities pursued
                                                                           by those companies — it has not been possible for them in
                                                                           any way to distort competition, so that the measures in
                                                                           question cannot be classified as aid within the meaning of
Action brought on 8 August 2002 by the Italian Republic
                                                                           Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case C-290/02)                                  In any event, those measures fully satisfy the conditions
                                                                           according to which they may be regarded as compatible
                                                                           aid within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) and, possibly,
                          (2002/C 233/29)                                  Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
                                                                           (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                                down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 8 August 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Maurizio Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato.


C 35/20                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                    7.2.2004
       Removal from the register of Case T-124/03 (1)                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-161/03: Cascades S.A. v Commission of the European
                         (2004/C 35/37)                                   Communities.
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the register of Case T-124/03: AES Drax Power Limited v
Commission of the European Communities.                                          Removal from the register of Case T-243/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/40)
(1) OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the First
       Removal from the register of Case T-127/03 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2004/C 35/38)                                   T-243/03: Guardant, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.
By order of 7 November 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-127/03: Antoinette Pascucci v Europol.
(1) OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003.                                                      Removal from the register of Case T-244/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/41)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
       Removal from the register of Case T-161/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/39)                                   By order of 15 October 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                          T-244/03: Flavia Angeletti v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
By order of 4 November 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    (1) OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-311/96)

text:
No C 354/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23 . 11 . 96
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
    costs .                                                           the Court should :
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                          with Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
— Under Article 1 of Council Directive 89/465/EEC, the                    coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
    Member States are no longer permitted as from                         operating in the water, energy, transport and
     1 January 1990 to exempt supplies of recuperable                     telecommunications sectors ('), the French Republic has
    material and fresh industrial waste pursuant to                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, in
    Article 28 ( 3 ) and point 20 of Annex F of the original              particular Article 45 thereof,
    version of the sixth Directive ( 77/388/EEC ). As a result
    of Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC, such supplies are           — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
    now subject to value added tax .                                      inform the Commission of such measures , the French
                                                                          Republic has in any event failed to fulfil its obligations
— Merely making a request pursuant to Article 27 of                       under the said Directive ;
    Directive     77/388/EEC      cannot     detract  from    the
    Commission's power to bring proceedings under                     — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
    Article 169 of the EC Treaty for failure to fulfil
    obligations .                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Moreover, the Commission denies that the procedure in             The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
    question (') has not been concluded . The short                   paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty is such as to
    time-limits prescribed by Article 27 ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) are          oblige Member States to whom directives are addressed to
    justified by requirements relating to legal certainty.            adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of
    Undertakings and Member States should be made                     such directives within the time-limit prescribed therein . The
    certain as quickly as possible about any national                 time-limit laid down in Article 45 of Directive 93/38/EEC
    measure constituting a derogation from the common                 expired on 1 July 1994 but the French Republic has not
    system of value added tax . The Netherlands                       adopted the necessary measures .
    Government itself has not taken any steps to eliminate
    the present unlawful state of affairs . In particular, it has     (') OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 84 .
    failed to place the matter on the Council 's agenda . Since
    the Council has not adopted a positive decision after the
    expiry of a reasonable time, the procedure initiated by
    the Netherlands Government under Article 27 must be
    regarded as closed . That Government's position that the
    procedure initiated in 1990 is still pending in mid-1995
                                                                      Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission
    is also unconvincing given that the solution 'put
                                                                      of the European Communities against the French
    forward ' in 1990 was to be valid for only three years
                                                                                Republic
    according to the wording of the request.
                                                                                ( Case C-312/96 )
(') Letter of 24 August 1990 from the Commission to the other                                    ( 96/C 354/32 )
    Member States and the communication to the Council of
    22 October 1990 [ SEC(90 ) 2031 final ].                          An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
                                                                      Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                             Republic                                 the Court should :
                        ( Case C-311 /96 )
                          ( 96/C 354/31 )                             — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                          with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
An action against the French Republic was brought before                  coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       contracts ( ^ the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                       obligations under that Directive, in particular Article 34
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                       thereof;
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                  — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 inform the Commission of such measures, the French


title: Case C-422/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court of 19 October 2000, in the case of Capespan International plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 28/18                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.1.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                 (i)    For products listed in the Annex to Commission Regu-
Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten by order of 8 November                           lation (EC) No. 3223/94 (1) (‘Regulation 3223/94’), as
2000 in the case of the Mayor of the provincial capital                       replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1890/96 (2),
             Klagenfurt against Renate Sterbenz                               and entered into the European Community from
                                                                              18 March 1997 but before 18 July 1998, being the date
                                                                              upon which Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1498/98 (3)
                        (Case C-421/00)                                       (‘Regulation 1498/98’) amending Article 5 of Regulation
                                                                              3223/94 is expressed to have entered into force, is the
                                                                              customs value of such products to be determined in
                         (2001/C 28/33)                                       accordance with
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              a)    the rules set out in Chapter 3 of Title II (namely
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                                                                                Articles 28 to 36) to Council Regulation (EEC)
tungssenat für Kärnten (Independent Administrative Chamber
                                                                                No. 2913/92 (4) (‘the Code’) and the rules set out in
for Carinthia) of 8 November 2000, which was received at the
                                                                                Title V (namely Articles 141 to 181a) to Com-
Court Registry on 14 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                                mission Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93 (5) (‘the
in the case of the Mayor of the provincial capital Klagenfurt
                                                                                Implementing Regulation’); or
against Renate Sterbenz on the following question:
                                                                              b)     Article 5 of Regulation 3223/94?
‘Are Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty as amended by
the Treaty of Amsterdam and Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1) and
(2) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for       (ii) If the customs value is not to be determined in accordance
sale to the ultimate consumer (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1) in the                     with either of the above, what is the correct basis for the
applicable version to be interpreted as precluding national                   determination of the customs value of such products?
legislation prohibiting any health-related information from
appearing on the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs,
products intended for human consumption and additives for              (iii) Is Regulation 1498/98, amending with effect from 18 July
general consumption, save if expressly authorised? (Paragraph                 1998 Article 5 of Regulation 3223/94 on detailed rules
9(1)(a) to (c) and (3) of the LMG 1975, BGBl. No. 1975/86 in                  for the application of the import arrangements for fruit
the applicable version)’.                                                     and vegetables published in the Official Journal of the
                                                                              European Communities [OJ No L 198, 15.07.98 p. 4],
                                                                              valid?
                                                                       (iv) If Regulation 1498/98 is not valid, how is the customs
                                                                              value of products of the type identified in question (i),
                                                                              which are entered into the European Community from
                                                                              18 July 1998, to be determined?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties               (v)    Whether or not Regulation 1498/98 is valid, does
Tribunal, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that                        Regulation 3223/94 preclude the giving of a provisional
court of 19 October 2000, in the case of Capespan                             indication of customs value in accordance with Article
International plc against Commissioners of Customs and                        254 of the Implementing Regulation?
                              Excise
                                                                       (1) of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of
                        (Case C-422/00)                                     the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (OJ L 337,
                                                                            24.12.1994, p. 66).
                                                                       (2) OJ L 249, 1.10.1996, p. 29.
                         (2001/C 28/34)                                (3) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.
                                                                       (4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                            establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      19.10.1992, p. 1).
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties              (5) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Tribunal, London Tribunal Centre, of 19 October 2000, which                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
                                                                            p. 1).
was received at the Court Registry on 14 November 2000, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Capespan International plc
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the follow-
ing questions: