title: Case T-403/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Intrasoft International v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Technical assistance to the Customs Administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs system — Conflict of interests — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia — Implicit rejection of the complaint against the rejection of the bid)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Intrasoft International v Commission
   (Case T-403/12) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Technical assistance to the Customs Administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs system - Conflict of interests - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia - Implicit rejection of the complaint against the rejection of the bid))
   (2015/C 398/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 10 August 2012, acting through the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia, stating that the tendering procedure EuropeAid/131367/C/SER/RS, entitled ‘Technical assistance to the Customs Administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs’ (OJ 2011/S 160-262712), could not be awarded to the consortium of which Intrasoft International SA was a part, and secondly, an application for the annulment of the alleged implicit decision rejecting the complaint made by the applicant against the letter of the 10 August 2012.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision rejecting the tender of the consortium of which Intrasoft International SA was part, contained in the letter of 10 August 2012 drafted by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia as the European Commission’s subdelegated contracting authority and relating to the tendering procedure EuropeAid/131367/C/SER/RS, entitled ‘Technical assistance to the Customs Administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs system’;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case C-515/04: Action brought on 15 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/16

         Action brought on 15 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-515/04)
   (2005/C 31/33)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and R. Troosters, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 31 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12.


title: Case C-369/99: Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 6/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht               The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that court of
6 September 1999 in the case of Dr Silveria Gäng against
                      Republic of Austria                             1. annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 1999 concern-
                                                                          ing the application by the Spanish Government for a
                                                                          transitional regime in accordance with Article 24 of
                        (Case C-361/99)                                   Directive 96/92/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
                                                                          the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common
                          (2000/C 6/17)                                   rules for the internal market in electricity, and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna) of
6 September 1999, received at the Court Registry on 27 Sep-
tember 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Silveria      Pleas in law and main arguments
Gäng against Republic of Austria on the following questions:
                                                                      — Infringement of Article 24(1) of Directive 96/92/EC: while
1. Has Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (1)
                                                                          the decision refusing to allow the application is based on
    (the Equal Treatment Directive) been properly transposed              the fact ‘that the nature of the measure notified is
    into Austrian national law by the current version of the
                                                                          more important than its objective’, in its decision the
    Austrian Bundes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (Federal Law on
                                                                          Commission does not adduce any evidence to support the
    Equal Treatment), BGBl 100/1993, as regards the upper                 conclusion that it has considered the substance of the
    limit for damages claimed (Paragraph 15(2) of the Federal
                                                                          matter. The Commission therefore acknowledges in its
    Law on Equal Treatment) and as regards the requirement
                                                                          statement contained in the Council’s minutes (12851/96
    that public sector employees of the Republic of Austria               ADD 1) that recovery of investments constitutes an
    bring such claims within six months by application to
                                                                          appropriate basis for the application of Article 24. It
    the administrative authority with jurisdiction over them
                                                                          should be noted that the so-called ‘Costs of Transition to
    (Paragraph 19(2) of the Federal Law on Equal Treatment)?              Competition’ (‘CTC’) constitute a method the nature of
                                                                          which is similar to that wider concept of the recovery of
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is that                investments, dealing with indemnification in part with
    Directive intended to confer an individual right on the               regard to the additional effort, in terms of investments,
    claimant in the main proceedings in this case?                        made by undertakings in order to comply with a policy of
                                                                          public intervention, the purpose of which was to guarantee
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does                diversification in the electricity sector and security of
    this reference for a preliminary ruling contain all the               supply of electricity. It must, therefore, be concluded that
    information the Court of Justice needs to determine itself            the CTC system does indeed constitute a derogation, which
    whether the Austrian Federal Law on Equal Treatment is                the Commission may accept in accordance with Article 24
    manifestly incompatible with the wording and purpose of               of the Directive, from Article 8(2) thereof, a derogation
    Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 or is                 which has not been assessed or examined in the Com-
    the determination of that question in this case to be left to         mission’s decision.
    the Austrian court which has made the reference?
                                                                      — Infringement of Article 24(3) of Directive 96/92/EC: the
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                          derogation from Article 8(2) of the Directive, requested by
                                                                          the Spanish authorities, for isolated networks, necessarily
                                                                          entails either a higher supply price for consumers using
                                                                          those isolated systems or, if the criterion of equal treatment
                                                                          for all national customers is used, the introduction of
                                                                          compensation for those extra costs. The latter is the
                                                                          solution chosen by the Spanish legislation, which neither
                                                                          affects intra-Community trade nor is capable of distorting
Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          competition, which does not exist in isolated systems.
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          Accordingly, in the contested decision the Commission
                                 ties
                                                                          was wrong to apply Article 24(3) of Directive 96/92/EC,
                                                                          given that the ‘sistemas insulares y extrapeninsulares’
                        (Case C-369/99)                                   (systems in the islands and outside Iberia) must give rise to
                                                                          the derogations provided for by that provision, and has
                          (2000/C 6/18)                                   failed to comply with Article 8(2) of the Directive.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-             — Breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 4 October                 tations: the Commission had publicly, constantly and
1999 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva de                  firmly maintained that compensation schemes for non-
Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                 commercial prices in the electricity sector must be notified
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.              and, where appropriate, authorised pursuant to Article 24
 ---pagebreak--- C 6/10                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
     of the Directive, even adopting draft directives in that field    — infringement of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No
     which it communicated to the Member States. The sudden                 729/70 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 (3);
     change of mind by the Commission, now considering that
     compensation schemes for non-commercial prices and the            — overstepping by the Commission of the limits of its
     ‘sistemas insulares y extrapeninsulares’ in the electricity            discretion;
     sector cannot fall within the scope of Article 24 because
     they do not involve formal derogations from the obli-             — defective or no statement of grounds;
     gations imposed by the Directive, damages the expectations
     of both Spain and the economic operators which the
                                                                       — infringement of an essential procedural requirement for
     Commission itself had raised.
                                                                            imposing the corrections;
— Breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.                — infringement/misinterpretation of Article 12(6) of Regu-
                                                                            lation (EEC) No 2677/85; (4)
                                                                       — lack of competence ratione temporis for the Commission
(1) OJ No L 27, p. 20 of 30.1.1997.
                                                                            to impose penalties.
                                                                       ( 1) Decision 99/596/EC, OJ No L 226, 27.8.1999, p. 26.
                                                                       ( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
                                                                       ( 3) OJ No L 125, 8.6.1995, p. 1.
                                                                       ( 4) OJ No L 254, 25.9.1985, p. 5.
Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Hellenic
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                         (Case C-373/99)                               Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Federal
                                                                       Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                          (2000/C 6/19)                                                      European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (Case C-376/99)
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 7 October 1999 by the Hellenic Republic,                                             (2000/C 6/20)
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State
Legal Service, and Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of
that Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.                                   ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 7 October 1999 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in
The applicant claims that the Court should: annul or, in the           the Federal Ministry of Financial Affairs, 108 Graurheindorfer
alternative, amend Commission Decision C (1999) 2476 of                Straße, D-53117 Bonn, and Holger-Friedrich Wissel, Rechtsan-
28 July 1999 amending Decision 99/187/EC on the clearance              walt, c/o Pünder, Volhard, Weber & Axster, 6 Cecilienallee,
of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of           D-40474 Düsseldorf.
the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
(EAGGF) (1), as regards the chapters thereof specifically contest-
ed, which concern the financial corrections to fruit and
                                                                       1. Annul the Commission decision of 8 July 1999 concerning
vegetables, to arable crops, to the 2 % deduction for adminis-
                                                                            a measure taken by the Federal Republic of Germany in
trative expenditure, to cotton and to olive oil.
                                                                            favour of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale, refer-
                                                                            ence COM (1999) 2265 fin., notified on 4 August 1999;
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                               2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
The main grounds for annulment advanced by the Hellenic                Pleas in law and main arguments
Republic are as follows:
                                                                       — Irregular composition of the Commission [see Case
— incorrect assessment by the Commission of the facts;                      C-334/99 (1)].


title: Case C-366/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2008 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Adolf Darbo AG

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2008 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Adolf Darbo AG
   (Case C-366/08)
   (2008/C 272/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht München
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

      Defendant: Adolf Darbo AG
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the term low-sugar jams in Part A of Annex III to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (1) to be interpreted as also covering jams named extra jam?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative:

                           a)

                           How is the term low-sugar jams in Part A of Annex III to Directive 95/2/EC to be interpreted otherwise?

                           b)

                           In particular is it to be interpreted as also covering jams named extra jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 %?

               3.

               If the answers to Questions 1 and 2(b) are affirmative:
               Is the second paragraph of Part II of Annex I to Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the name extra jam can be authorised also in respect of jams which have a soluble dry matter content of less than 60 % where in the case of such jams no less strict requirements are imposed on the name jam?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 61, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 10, p. 67.


title: Case C-565/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 November 2011 — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/34

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 November 2011 — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
      (Case C-565/11)
      (2012/C 25/66)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Sibiu

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Mariana Irimie

         Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

         Question referred

      Can the principle of the effectiveness, equivalence and proportionality of remedies in relation to infringements of Community law to which individuals are subjected as the result of the application of legislation which does not conform to Community law arising from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the right to property laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be regarded as precluding provisions of national law which limit the amount of damage which could be recovered by an individual who has suffered an infringement of his rights?


title: Case T-201/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Gerson v OHIM (Paint filter partly coloured yellow) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Paint filter partly coloured yellow — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Gerson v OHIM (Paint filter partly coloured yellow)
   (Case T-201/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Paint filter partly coloured yellow - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 272/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc., (Middleboro, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2006 (Case R 1387/2005-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of a paint filter coloured yellow near the tip.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-47/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Civil-law notaries — Nationality condition — Article 45 EC — Connection with the exercise of official authority — Directive 89/48/EEC)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-47/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Civil-law notaries - Nationality condition - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directive 89/48/EEC)
   2011/C 204/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, H. Støvlbæk and G. Zavvos, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and L. Van den Broeck, Agents, and H. Gilliams and L. Goossens, avocats)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent), Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 45 EC — National legislation making access to the profession of notary and its practice subject to a nationality requirement — Restriction on freedom of establishment — Scope of the exception relating to activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Requirement of direct and specific connection with such exercise — Failure to transpose, in respect of the profession of notary, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing a nationality condition for access to the profession of notary, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case C-34/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2012 by Idromacchine Srl and Others against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 Idromacchine Srl and Others v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/15

         Appeal brought on 24 January 2012 by Idromacchine Srl and Others against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 Idromacchine Srl and Others v Commission
   (Case C-34/12 P)
   2012/C 89/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Idromacchine Srl, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 in so far as it:

                           —

                           failed to recognise that Idromacchine suffered material damage;

                           —

                           recognised that Idromacchine suffered only negligible non-material damage;

                           —

                           failed to recognise that Messrs Capuzzo suffered non-material damage;

                           —

                           accordingly, grant the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants claim that the General Court erred in law in the following respects:

               I.

               Manifest error, apparent from the documents before the Court, in finding that a declaration that the damaging factual allegations relied on by Idromacchine were false could not constitute the subject matter of the proceedings;

               II.

               Inadequate and, in any event, incorrect statement of reasons with regard to the rejection of the complaints alleging breach of the duty to exercise due care and of the rights of the defence;

               III.

               Manifest distortion, apparent from the documents before the Court, of the facts and evidence with regard to material damage — Breach of the rules governing the burden of proof — Defective reasoning;

               IV.

               Breach of the duty to state reasons, of the principle of proportionality and non-discrimination and denial of justice with regard to the criteria for quantifying the non-material damage which it is acknowledged Idromacchine suffered;

               V.

               Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, failure to state reasons, manifest substantive inaccuracy, apparent from the documents before the Court, as regards the failure to recognise that compensation should be awarded for the non-material damage suffered by Messrs Capuzzo.


title: Case T-399/12: Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Cosma Moden v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/31

      Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Cosma Moden v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)
      (Case T-399/12)
      (2012/C 331/59)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 July 2012 in Case R 2010/2010-4 in respect of Community trade mark application No 6 593 479 and alter that decision to the effect that the appeal is well founded and that the opposition must as a result also be rejected as to the remainder;

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

         Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘COSMA’ for goods and services in Classes 24, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6 593 479

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘comma’ and the national word mark ‘comma’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 35

         Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-19/05: Action brought on 20 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/5

         Action brought on 20 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-19/05)
   (2005/C 93/10)
   Language of the case: Danish
   An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 January 2005 (fax 14.01.) by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. B. Rasmussen and G. Wilms, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to pay the Commission the sum of DKK 18 687 475 as own resources, together with default interest from 27 July 2000, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law, in particular Article 10 EC and Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom (1) of 31 October 1994 on the system of the European Communities' own resources;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The amount referred to in the application represents the duty that the Danish customs authorities omitted to collect in the period 1994-1997 from an undertaking wrongly permitted by the said authorities to import certain goods at zero rate. That permission was given as concerning goods intended for incorporation in or for fitting to or equipping ships, boats or other vessels in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, Annex 1, Section II. The goods were, however, intended for the manufacture of containers and could not, as was later acknowledged by the Danish authorities, be covered by the said provision.
   The Danish authorities have unlawfully failed to make the said amount available to the Commission as own resources. The claims made in this connection correspond to those made by the Commission in its application against Denmark in Case C-392/02 (3).

      (1)  OJ L 293 of 12.11.1994, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ L 256 of 7.09.1987, p.1.

      (3)  OJ C 31 of 8.02.2003, p. 4.


title: Case C-136/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consiglio nazionale dei geologi v Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato and Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato v Consiglio nazionale dei geologi (Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Scope of the obligation on courts of final instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 101 TFEU — Code of conduct of a professional association prohibiting the application of fee scales which are not commensurate with the dignity of the profession)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consiglio nazionale dei geologi v Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato and Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato v Consiglio nazionale dei geologi
   (Case C-136/12) (1)

   (Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU - Scope of the obligation on courts of final instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 101 TFEU - Code of conduct of a professional association prohibiting the application of fee scales which are not commensurate with the dignity of the profession)
   2013/C 260/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Consiglio nazionale dei geologi, Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato

      Defendants: Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato, Consiglio nazionale dei geologi

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU — Scope of the obligation on courts of final instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling — Concept of ‘serious manifest breach of European Union law’ — Procedural rules and principles of a Member State which prohibit a national court from, first, referring questions to the Court as formulated by one of the parties to the proceedings which are manifestly inadmissible and, second, reformulating such questions of its own motion — Interpretation of Article 101 TFEU, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) (OJ 1985 L 199, p. 1), of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) and Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) — Code of conduct of a professional association prohibiting the application of fee scales which are not commensurate with the dignity of the profession (‘decoro e dignità professionale’) or with the quantity and quality of the services provided — Applicability of national competition rules that are more stringent than European Union rules

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the referring court alone to determine and formulate the questions to be referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of European Union law which it considers relevant for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings. National rules which have the effect of undermining that jurisdiction must be disapplied.

               2.

               Rules such as those laid down by the Code of Conduct concerning the exercise of the profession of geologist in Italy, approved by the Consiglio nazionale dei geologi on 19 December 2006 and amended most recently on 24 March 2010, which establish as criteria for determining the remuneration of geologists, in addition to the quality and scale of the work to be performed, the dignity of the profession, constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU which may have the effect of restricting competition within the internal market. It is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the overall context in which the Code of Conduct produces its effects, including the national legal framework in its entirety and the manner in which that code is applied in practice by the National Association of Geologists, whether that effect is produced in the present case. That court must also verify whether, in the light of all the relevant material before it, the rules of that code, in particular in so far as they apply the criterion based on the dignity of the profession, may be regarded as necessary for the implementation of the legitimate objective of providing guarantees to consumers of geologists’ services.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case T-377/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Preparados Alimenticios v OHIM — Rila Feinkost-Importe (Jambo Afrika) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Jambo Afrika — Earlier Community figurative marks JUMBO, JUMBO CUBE, JUMBO MARINADE, JUMBO NOKKOS, JUMBO ROF, JUMBO CHORBA MOUTON-MUTTON, JUMBO Aroma All purpose seasoning Condiment — Earlier national figurative marks JUMBO — Non-registered earlier word mark JUMBO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Preparados Alimenticios v OHIM — Rila Feinkost-Importe (Jambo Afrika)
   (Case T-377/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Jambo Afrika - Earlier Community figurative marks JUMBO, JUMBO CUBE, JUMBO MARINADE, JUMBO NOKKOS, JUMBO ROF, JUMBO CHORBA MOUTON-MUTTON, JUMBO Aroma All purpose seasoning Condiment - Earlier national figurative marks JUMBO - Non-registered earlier word mark JUMBO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 9/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Preparados Alimenticios, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Rila Feinkost-Importe GmbH & Co. KG (Stemwede-Levern, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case No R 1144/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Preparados Alimenticios, SA and Rila Feinkost-Importe GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Preparados Alimenticios, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-158/06: Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/25

         Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)
   (Case T-158/06)
   (2006/C 190/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Adobe Systems Inc. (San Jose, USA) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2006 in Case R 1430/2005-2 Adobe Systems Incorporated v OHIM (Flex) insofar as it dismissed the appeal for other goods than ‘computer hardware; computer peripherals and data processing equipment’ in class 9 and the services applied for of class 42.

               —

               Order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLEX’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — application No 3 795 011

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and failure to take prior national registrations into account.


title: Case T-161/11: Action brought on 15 March 2011 — High Tech v OHIM — Vitra Collections (Shape of a chair)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/26

         Action brought on 15 March 2011 — High Tech v OHIM — Vitra Collections (Shape of a chair)
   (Case T-161/11)
   2011/C 139/50
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: High Tech Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vitra Collections AG

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision and declare Community trade mark No 2.298.420 invalid

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A three-dimensional figurative mark based on the ‘Alu chair’ (Community trade mark No 2 298 420), for goods in Class 20

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Vitra Collections AG

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: High Tech Srl

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation 207/2009. The applicant also claimed that the mark should be declared invalid on the ground that its registration is intended to exclude the applicant from the market in design objects that have entered the public domain and therefore the registration was in bad faith.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 7(1)(e)(iii) and 52(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009.


title: Case F-9/10: Action brought on 29 January 2010 — AC v Council

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/79

         Action brought on 29 January 2010 — AC v Council
   (Case F-9/10)
   2010/C 113/116
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AC (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodruigez and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of persons promoted to grade AD 13 in the 2009 promotion procedure and an order that the defendant make good the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority not to include the applicant in the list of persons promoted to grade AD 13 in the 2009 promotion procedure, as that decision can be determined from Staff Notice No 94/09 of 27 April 2009;

               —

               Annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-material loss suffered;

               —

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


title: Case F-95/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2007 — N v Commission of the European Communities (Staff case — Temporary agents — Recruitment — Post of head of administration — Non-member country — Unfavourable opinion of the medical service)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2007 — N v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-95/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Temporary agents - Recruitment - Post of head of administration - Non-member country - Unfavourable opinion of the medical service)
   (2008/C 22/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: N (Brussels) (originally represented by K.H. Hagenaar, lawyer, then by J. van Drooghenbroeck and T. Demaseure, lawyers, and finally by I. Kletzlen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision not to recruit the applicant as a temporary agent to the post of head of administration in Guinea Conakry as a result of the unfavourable opinion of the medical service and a claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Director of Directorate K ‘External service’ of Directorate-General ‘External Relations’ of the Commission of the European Communities of 15 April 2005, informing the applicant that she would not be recruited as head of administration of the delegation in Guinea;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006, p. 2 (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under T-377/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15 December 2005).


C 258/28                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
te Groningen by judgments of that court of 20 May 1998                 Travail de LieÁge (7th Chamber) by judgment of that court
in the case of Hendrik Van der Woude against Stichting                 of 17 June 1998 in the case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop
                             Beatrixoord                                           against the Office National de l'Emploi
                          (Case C-222/98)                                                      (Case C-224/98)
                            (98/C 258/45)                                                       (98/C 258/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Kantongerecht
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
te Groningen (Cantonal Court, Groningen) of 20 May
                                                                       Travail de LieÁge (7eÁme chambre) (LieÁge Labour Court Ð
1998, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 1998, for
                                                                       7th Chamber) of 17 June 1998, received at the Court
a preliminary ruling in the case of Hendrik Van der
                                                                       Registry on 22 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
Woude against Stichting Beatrixoord on the following
                                                                       case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop against the Office
question:
                                                                       National de l'Emploi on the following question:
Are Article II(G) of the CAO (1) (which prohibits any
departure from the terms of that collective labour                     Given that the Court of Justice has already interpreted
agreement (2)) and Article 32 thereof (which lays down the             Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation
medical expenses insurance rules (3)), read in conjunction             No 1612/68 (1) to mean that Article 36 of the Royal
with each other, contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC              Decree of 25 November 1991 cannot prevent a dependent
Treaty?                                                                child of a Community migrant worker who has completed
                                                                       his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
(1) Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst voor het ziekenhuiswezen           State other than Belgium from being eligible to receive the
    (Collective Labour Agreement relating to medical treatment).       tideover allowance, are those provisions to be interpreted
(2) may not . . . agree with the employee any conditions of           as meaning that Article 36 of the aforesaid royal decree
    employment which are not regulated by this CAO'.                   also cannot prevent a Belgian student who has completed
(3) Employees (and former employees) may be members of the             his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
    IZZ collective medical expenses insurance scheme. In               State other than Belgium and is seeking his first
    accordance with that article, Beatrixoord pays 50 % of the
                                                                       employment from being eligible to receive the tideover
    premium due from Mr Van der Woude in respect of the
    collective (individual) IZZ Medical Expenses Scheme.               allowance?
                                                                       (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
                                                                           relating to the free movement of workers within the
                                                                           Community (OJ L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Kammarrätten,
Stockholm by order of 16 June 1998 in the case of
           Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG
                          (Case C-223/98)
                                                                       Action brought on 22 June 1998 by the Commission of
                            (98/C 258/46)
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-225/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 16 June 1998 from                                              (98/C 258/48)
Kammarrätten, Stockholm (Administrative Court of
Appeal, Stockholm), which was received at the Court
Registry on 18 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the              An action against the French Republic was brought before
case of Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG on the                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
following question:                                                    22 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Michael Nolin, of its Legal
                                                                       Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Does Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 (1) constitute a
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
bar to application of rules of national law under which
                                                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the names of declarers or consignees of imported goods,
which the trade-mark owner has found to be counterfeit,
may not be disclosed to the trade-mark owner?                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994
    laying down measures to prohibit the release from free             Declare that, in the course of the various procedures for
    circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive           the award of public service contracts for the construction
    procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 341 of            and maintenance of school buildings conducted by the
    30.12.1994, p. 8).                                                 Nord-Pas de Calais Region and the DeÂpartement du Nord
                                                                       over a period of three years, the French Republic has
                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC


title: Case T-595/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — A v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Social security — Occupational disease — Total permanent invalidity — Access to the personal file — Reimbursement of travel expenses — Claim for damages)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — A v Commission
   (Case T-595/11) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Social security - Occupational disease - Total permanent invalidity - Access to the personal file - Reimbursement of travel expenses - Claim for damages)
   2013/C 38/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: A (P., France) (represented by: B. Cambier, A. Paternostre and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011, A v Commission (F-12/09, not yet published in the ECR), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               There is no further need to rule on the appeal in so far as it concerns the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011, A v Commission (F-12/09, not yet published in the ECR), in so far as it concerns the application to set aside the decision of 28 April 2008 in as far as it refused to pay the provisional allowance provided for under Article 19(4) of the joint rules and to apply the provisions of Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, and the application to order the Commission to pay the benefit provided for by that article;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


               31.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 29/5

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 14 September 2012 in the case of Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf.
   (Case E-10/12)
   2013/C 29/06
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 September 2012 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 September 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf., on the following question:
   Should Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991, on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship, be interpreted as meaning, in circumstances including bankruptcy proceedings or a comparable division of a limited liability company, that compensation to an employee is to be assessed on the basis of a written contract of employment if no written document has been handed over to the employee concerning amendments, temporary or permanent, that may have been made to the main features of the contract of employment or employment relationship between the parties within the time-limits laid down in Article 5 of the Directive?


title: Case C-7/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/86/EC — Traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells — Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-7/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/86/EC - Traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells - Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods)
   2010/C 11/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and J. Sénéchal, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have adopted or communicated, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by not adopting within the period prescribed in the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.03.2009.


18.3.2000             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 79/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-337/99 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-436/99 P (1)
                        (2000/C 79/42)                                                      (2000/C 79/45)
By order of 9 December 1999 the President of the Court of          By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-337/99: Commission of the European       from the register of Case C-436/99 P: Karl Meyer v Commission
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                  of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.                                        (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-252/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/43)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/46)
By order of 12 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 18 January 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-115/99: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-252/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/44)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-272/99 (1)
By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                   (2000/C 79/47)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/98: Commission of the              By order of 19 January 2000 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-272/99: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                          European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 1999 in Case T-198/98: Micro Leader Business v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Complaint — Rejection — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC)— Prohibition on importing software marketed in a third country — Exhaustion of copyright — Directive 91/250/EEC)

text:
C 102/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.4.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 February 2000
                      of 16 December 1999
                                                                          in Case T-60/99: Malcolm Townsend v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-198/98: Micro Leader Business v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Joint sickness insurance scheme — Cover for
                                                                                spouses)
(Competition — Complaint — Rejection — Articles 85 and
86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) —                                                 (2000/C 102/48)
Prohibition on importing software marketed in a third
country — Exhaustion of copyright — Directive
                           91/250/EEC)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-60/99: Malcolm Townsend, an official of the
                         (2000/C 102/47)                                  Commission of the European Communities, residing at Sterre-
                                                                          beek (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Greta-Fran-
                                                                          çoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                    (Language of the case: French)                        SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Florence Duvieusart-
                                                                          Clotuche) — application for annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Brussels Settlements Office of 12 March 1998 refusing to
In Case T-198/98, Micro Leader Business, a company incorpor-              reimburse to the applicant certain medical expenses incurred
ated under French law, established in Aulnay-sous-Bois, France,           by his wife — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge),
represented by Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, of the Paris Bar,             composed of: V. Tiili, sitting as a single judge; J. Palacio
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
Brucher and Seimetz, 10 Rue de Vianden, against Commission                ment on 3 February 2000, in which it:
of the European Communities, (Agents: initially José Crespo
Carrillo, and Loïc Guérin and, subsequently, Giuliano Marenco,            1. Dismisses the application;
and Loïc Guérin) — application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s decision of 15 October 1998 (Case IV/36.219                     2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Micro Leader/Microsoft) definitively rejecting the applicant’s
complaint that the actions of Microsoft France and Microsoft
Corporation in seeking to prevent French-language editions of             (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
Microsoft software packages marketed in Canada from being
imported into France are contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the
EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) — the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber),
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 December 1999, in which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 15 October 1998 (Case                                    of 7 February 2000
     IV/36.219 Micro Leader/Microsoft) definitively rejecting the
     applicant’s complaint that the actions of Microsoft France and
     Microsoft Corporation in seeking to prevent French-language          in Case T-168/94 (92): Blackspur DIY Ltd and Others v
     editions of Microsoft software packages marketed in Canada                        Council of the European Union (1)
     from being imported into France are contrary to Articles 85 and
     86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC and 82 EC).                                          (Taxation of costs)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/49)
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                          In Case T-168/94 (92): Blackspur DIY Ltd, having its registered
                                                                          office in Unsworth, Bury (United Kingdom), Steven Kellar,
                                                                          J.M.A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen, residing in Manchester
                                                                          (United Kingdom), represented by K.P.E. Lasok, Barrister,
                                                                          instructed by C. Khan, Solicitor, with an address for service in


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case C-42/94: Heidemij Advies BV v. European Parliament (Article 181 of the EC Treaty - Arbitration clause - Extension of the European Parliament in Brussels - Unilateral termination by the European Parliament of the contract for services - Claim for damages by the contractor)

text:
22 . 7. 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/3
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3618/86 of 24 November 1986 ,                 No 3734/87 of 8 December 1987, (EEC) No 1779/88 of
amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3331/85 amending                     9 June 1988, (EEC) No 3696/88 of 18 November 1988,
Regulation ( EEC ) No 950/68 on the Common Customs                  (EEC) No 1656/89 of29 May 1989 and (EEC) No 3393/89
Tariff ( 2 ), the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: C.           of 16 October 1989, temporarily suspending the
Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.             autonomous Common Customs Tariff duty on certain
Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; G.               industrial products, must be intepreted as meaning that the
Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                   description of the product ex tariff heading 85.21 D II and
Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 June 1995 , the operative           subsequently ex 8542 1 1 99, defined as an analog-to-digital
part of which is as follows :                                       converter contained in a housing the exterior dimensions of
                                                                    which do not exceed 18 x 10 mm, also covers converters
the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Council                     contained in circular housings the diameter of which does
Regulation (EEC) No 3618/86 of 24 November 1986,                    not exceed 1 0 mm .
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3331 /85 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs                     !) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
Tariff, must be interpreted to the effect that a sterile powder      2) OJ No L 362 , 20 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
made up of amino acids mixed in precise proportions and              3) OJ  No L 177,  1 . 7 . 1987, p . 1 .
used for the preparation of infusion solutions falls under           4) OJ  No L 358 , 19 . 12 . 1987, p . 1 .
                                                                     5) OJ  No L 164 , 30 . 6 . 1988 , p . 1 .
heading 30.03 (subheading 30.03 A II (b)).                           6) OJ  No L 329 , 1 . 12 . 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                     7) OJ  No L 167,  16 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
H OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                       8) OJ  No L 332 , 16 . 11 . 1989 , p . 1 .
(2 ) OJ No L 345 , 8 . 12 . 1986, p. 1 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 1 June 1995
                          of 1 June 1995
                                                                        in Case C-42/94 : Heidemij Advies BV v. European
in Case C-467/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                       Parliament (M
the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Munchen-West v.
                    Analog Devices GmbH (*)                         (Article 181 of the EC Treaty — Arbitration clause —
                                                                    Extension of the European Parliament in Brussels —
(Common Customs Tariff — Suspension of duties —                     Unilateral termination by the European Parliament of the
analog-to-digital converters for the calculation of the             contract for services — Claim for damages by the
              average value of variable wave-forms)                                                contractor)
                           ( 95/C 189/05
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/06 )
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-467/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    In Case C-42/94 : Heidemij Advies BV ( Lawyer: Vera Van
of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance
Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending          Houtte ) v. European Parliament (Agent: François Vainker )
before that court between Hauptzollamt Miinchen-West                — application for damages for unilateral termination of a
                                                                    contract for services — the Court (Third Chamber ),
and Analog Devices GmbH on the interpretation of Council
Regulations ( EEC ) No 3841 /86 of 8 December 1986 ( 2),            composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
( EEC ) No 1828/87 of 15 June 1987 ( 3 ), ( EEC ) No 3734/87        Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
of 8 December 1987 (4 ), ( EEC ) No 1779/88 of 9 June               Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1988 ( 5), ( EEC ) No 3696/88 of 18 November 1988 ( 6 ),            given a judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
( EEC ) No 1656/89 of 29 May 1989 ( 7) and ( EEC )
No 3393/89 of 16 October 1989 ( 8 ), temporarily                    1 , orders the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duty                     ECU 20 883,33 together with default interest at the rate
on certain industrial products — the Court (Third                        of 8% as from 1 5 September 1 993;
Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulman (President of
Chamber ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet          2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 June 1 995 , in         3 , orders the defendant to pay the costs.
which it rules :
                                                                    0 ) OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
Council Regulations (EEC) No 3841 /86 of 8 December
1986, (EEC) No 1828/87 of 15 June 1987, (EEC)


title: Case C-480/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/10

         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-480/06)
   (2007/C 20/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Schima, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 in conjunction with Titles III to VI of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1), in that the Landkreise Rotenburg (Wümme), Harburg, Soltau-Fallingbostel and Stade concluded a waste disposal services contract with Stadtreinigung Hamburg directly and did not make that service contract subject to a Community-wide open or restricted tender procedure;

               —

               An order that the Federal Republic of Germany pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 18 December 1995 four local counties (Landkreise) in Lower Saxony concluded a waste disposal services contract with Stadtreinigung Hamburg (Hamburg city cleaning authority), a body governed by a public law. That contract was concluded without carrying out an award procedure and without a Community-wide call for tenders.
   The Landkreise are contracting authorities and the contract at issue is a service contract for pecuniary interest concluded in writing which exceeds the relevant threshold for the application of Directive 92/50/EEC and thus falls within the scope of that directive.
   The fact that Stadtreinigung Hamburg as a body governed by public law is itself a contracting authority within the meaning of Directive 92/50/EEC does not alter the fact that the contract in dispute falls within the scope of that directive: as the Court of Justice has expressly declared, the directives on procurement law are always applicable if a contracting authority intends to conclude a contract for pecuniary interest in writing with a body which is distinct, in form, from itself and which has the power to make decisions independently of that authority.
   There are no facts apparent which justify a private award of the contract at issue in the form of a negotiated procedure without a prior contract notice.
   The Commission also does not agree with the view of the Federal Government that cooperation between local authorities as a product of municipal autonomy is not subject to procurement law, regardless of the legal form which it may take. Municipal autonomy cannot lead to a situation where local authorities are permitted to disregard the provisions on public awards of contracts. In so far as those local authorities were to conclude contracts on the provision of services with other bodies, even if those bodies were also contracting authorities themselves, they would be subject to procurement law. The German Government was also not able to prove that the service contract at issue could only be granted to a specific service provider for technical reasons.
   For those reasons the Commission comes to the conclusion that the Federal Republic of Germany infringed Directive 92/50/EEC by directly concluding a waste disposal services contract without carrying out an award procedure and without a Community-wide call for tenders.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.


title: Case C-511/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 — Determination of the dumping margin — Comparison between the normal value and the export price — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(7)(a) and 2(10))

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl
   (Case C-511/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 - Determination of the dumping margin - Comparison between the normal value and the export price - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(a) and 2(10))
   2011/C 370/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd (represented by: P. Bentley QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and C. Clyne, acting as Agents), IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl (R. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Case T-296/06 Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council, by which it dismissed an application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 of 24 July 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 1) — Determination of the dumping margin

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-513/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 17 December 1999 in the case of Stagecoach Finland v Helsingin Kaupunki and HKL-Bussiliikenne

text:
C 102/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein                          advantageous tender, take into account, in addition to the
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 17 December                        tender price and the quality and environment programme
1999 in the case of Stagecoach Finland v Helsingin                           of the transport operator and various other characteristics
              Kaupunki and HKL-Bussiliikenne                                 of the bus fleet, the low nitric oxide emissions and
                                                                             low noise level of the bus fleet offered by a tendering
                                                                             undertaking, in a manner announced beforehand in the
                        (Case C-513/99)                                      tender notice, such that if the nitric oxide emissions or
                                                                             noise level of the individual buses are below a certain level,
                                                                             extra points for the fleet may be taken into account in the
                        (2000/C 102/15)                                      comparison?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  3. If the answer to the above question is affirmative, an
European Communities by an order of the Korkein Hallin-                      answer is requested to the following question also: Are the
to-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of                        European Community provisions on public procurement
17 December 1999, which was received at the Court Registry                   to be interpreted as meaning that the awarding of extra
on 28 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 points for the above-mentioned characteristics relating to
Stagecoach Finland v Helsingin Kaupunki and HKL-Bussiliiken-                 nitric oxide emissions and noise level of the fleet is,
ne on the following questions:                                               however, not permitted if it is known beforehand that the
                                                                             department operating bus transport belonging to the city
                                                                             which is the contracting entity is able to offer a bus
1. Are the provisions on the scope of Council Directive                      fleet possessing the above characteristics, which in the
    93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement                   circumstances only a few undertakings in the sector are
    procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,                   otherwise able to offer?
    transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199,
    p. 84), in particular Article 2(1)(a), (2)(c) and (4), to be
    interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a
    procedure of a city which is a contracting entity for the
    award of a contract concerning the operation of bus
    transport within the city, if
    — the city is responsible for the planning, development,
        implementation and other arrangement and super-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
        vision of public transport in its area,                         Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 31 December
                                                                        1999 in the proceedings brought by Palin Granit Oy and
    — for the above functions the city has a public transport           Vehmassalon Kansanterveystyön Kuntayhtymän Hallitus
        committee and a city transport department subordinate
        thereto,
                                                                                (Case C-9/00)
    — within the city transport department there is a planning
                                                                                (2000/C 102/16)
        unit which acts as an ordering unit which prepares
        proposals for the public transport committee on which
        routes should be put out to tender and what level of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        quality of services should be required, and                     European Communities by an order of the Korkein Hallin-
                                                                        to-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 31
    — within the city transport department there are pro-               December 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
        duction units, economically distinct from the rest of           13 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
        the transport department, including a unit which                brought by Palin Granit Oy and Vehmassalon Kansanterveys-
        provides bus transport services and takes part in tender        työn Kuntayhtymän Hallitus on the following questions:
        procedures relating thereto?
                                                                        Is leftover stone resulting from stone quarrying to be regarded
2. Are the European Community provisions on public pro-                 as waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive
    curement, in particular Article 36(1) of Council Directive          75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by
    92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination              Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(2), having
    of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ         regard to points (a) to (d) below?
    1992 L 209, p. 1) or the equivalent Article 34(1) of
    Directive 93/38/EEC, to be interpreted as meaning that,             (a) What relevance, in deciding the above question, does it
    when organising a tender procedure concerning the oper-                  have that the leftover stone is stored on a site adjoining
    ation of bus transport within the city, a city which is a                the place of quarrying to await subsequent use? Is it
    contracting entity may, among the criteria for awarding                  relevant generally whether it is stored on the quarrying
    the contract on the basis of the economically most                       site, a site next to it or further away?


title: Case C-382/05: Action brought on  20 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/4

         Action brought on 20 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-382/05)
   (2006/C 22/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Aresu and X. Lewis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by reason of the fact that the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Prime Minister's Office) — Dipartimento per la protezione civile (Department of Civil Defence) — Ufficio del Commissario delegato (Office of the Deputy Government official) responsible for waste emergency and water protection in Sicily initiated the procedure for the award of contracts for the use of residual municipal waste, remaining after separately collected waste, produced in the municipal areas of the Region of Sicily, and concluded such contracts but failed to apply the procedures laid down by Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and, in particular, failed to publish the appropriate contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and, in particular, under Articles 11, 15 and 17 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the Commission, an examination of the documents relating to the award of the contracts at issue leads to the conclusion that they are to be classified as public service contracts governed by Directive 92/50/EEC.
   It follows that those contracts should have been awarded in compliance with the rules on advertising and participation laid down in Titles III and IV of that directive and, in particular, following publication in the O.J.E.U of the contract notice required by Articles 15 and 17 of the directive and in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 11.
   In the present case, the notice published on behalf of the Commissario delegato cannot be regarded as adequately fulfilling the advertising requirements laid down by the above-mentioned provisions. Not only does the model contract notice used for the advertisement refer to what is called the ‘prior information’ procedure and not to the award of contracts, but, more importantly, the information set out in the notice is clearly inadequate when compared with the information that must be included in accordance with the model contract notice set out in the Annexes to Directive 92/50/EEC, as most recently amended by Directive 2001/78/EC.

      (1)  O J 1992 L 209 p. 1


title: Case T-520/09: Action brought on 24 December 2009 — TF1 and Others v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/30

         Action brought on 24 December 2009 — TF1 and Others v Commission
   (Case T-520/09)
   2010/C 80/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Télévision française 1 (TF1) (Boulogne Billancourt, France), Métropole télévision (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France), Canal + SA (Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 September 2009 in State Aid Case C 27/09 (ex N 34/A/09 and N 34/B/09) — Budgetary grant in favour of France Télévisions (2010-2012) in so far as it decides to deem the budgetary grant notified of EUR 450 million for 2009, in favour of France Télévisions, compatible with the EC Treaty under Article 86(2) thereof;

               —

               Order the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure into the aid, laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action seeks the annulment of Decision C(2009) 6693 final of 1 September 2009, issued by the Commission following the procedure laid down in Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108 TFEU), by which the Commission deemed a budgetary grant, of a maximum amount of EUR 450 million for 2009 in favour of France Télévisions, compatible with the common market. The applicants request, against that background, that the formal investigation procedure be opened in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU.
   In support of their claim, the applicants put forward a single plea alleging that there were serious difficulties in the face of which the Commission was required to open the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC (now Article 108(2) TFEU) and to invite interested parties to make observations.
   The applicants assert that there were indications of serious difficulties resulting, on the one hand, from the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure and, on the other, from the content of the contested decision.
   The excessive duration of the preliminary investigation procedure, the conduct of the procedure and the amount of the disputed funding are such as to show that there are serious difficulties concerning the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure.
   The existence of indications of serious difficulties concerning the content of the contested decision is based on two factors. Firstly, it arises from the insufficient level of information, or even incorrect information, held by the Commission at the time of adoption of the contested decision and, secondly, from the fact that it was impossible for the Commission to conclude that the aid was compatible without an in-depth analysis, having regard to the structural concerns of over-compensation in the present case.


title: Case C-235/15: Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor
   (Case C-235/15) (1)

   (2016/C 475/22)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.