C 299/28              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16.10.1999
3. In evaluating those eligible for promotion, the Promotions            Diekmeier and Others v Council of the European Union and
    Committee did not follow the criteria laid down in the               Commission of the European Communities.
    promotion guidelines, but relied on other criteria. Those
    criteria also contravened the recommendations formulated
                                                                         (1) OJ C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 159 of 24.6.1995.
    by the Directorate-General to which the applicant belongs.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93                        Removal from the register of Case T-2/98 (1)
                         and Others (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/42)
                        (1999/C 299/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                  (Language of the cases: German)
                                                                         By order of 1 February 1999 the President of the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
By order of 21 May 1999, the President of the Fourth Chamber,
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         Case T-2/98: Petra Van Eynde-Neutens v Commission of the
European Communities has ordered the removal of Case
T-252/94 from the list of cases in Joined Cases T-85/93 and              European Communities.
Others: Helmut Bösl v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                  (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-168/98 (1)
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94                                       (1999/C 299/43)
                         and Others (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (1999/C 299/41)
                                                                         By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the First
                  (Language of the cases: German)                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-168/98: Anastasios Bisopoulos v Commission of the
By order of 21 May 1999, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         European Communities.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal of Cases T-16/95 and T-100/95 from
the list of cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.


title: Case T-418/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — OSA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — OSA v Commission
   (Case T-418/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s. (OSA) (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s. (OSA);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-289/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/17/EC — Coordination of the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-289/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/17/EC - Coordination of the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2008/C 128/24)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents,)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Andrade de Sousa, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 71 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-452/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division RAL (Channel Islands) Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 9(1) and (2) — Slot gaming machines — Entertainment or similar activities — Supplier of services established outside the territory of the Community — Determination of the place where services are supplied)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 12 May 2005
   in Case C-452/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division RAL (Channel Islands) Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)

   (VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 9(1) and (2) - Slot gaming machines - Entertainment or similar activities - Supplier of services established outside the territory of the Community - Determination of the place where services are supplied)
   (2005/C 182/21)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-452/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 17 October 2003, received at the Court on 27 October 2003, in the proceedings between RAL (Channel Islands) Ltd, RAL Ltd, RAL Services Ltd, RAL Machines Ltd, on the one hand, and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the other — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which it ruled:
   The supply of services consisting of enabling the public to use, for consideration, slot gaming machines installed in amusement arcades established in the territory of a Member State must be regarded as constituting entertainment or similar activities within the meaning of the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, so that the place where those services are supplied is the place where they are physically carried out.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.01.2004.


title: Case C-103/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria) lodged on  6 March 2008 — Arthur Gottwald v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria) lodged on 6 March 2008 — Arthur Gottwald v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz
   (Case C-103/08)
   (2008/C 142/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Arthur Gottwald

      Respondent: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz
   Question referred
   Is Article 12 EC to be interpreted as precluding the application of a provision of national law which provides that an annual disc in respect of a motor vehicle for the use of federal toll roads is made available free of charge only to those persons with a defined disability who are resident or ordinarily resident in national territory?


title: Case T-435/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2009 — Tokita Management Service v OHIM — Eminent Food (Tomatoberry)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2009 — Tokita Management Service v OHIM — Eminent Food (Tomatoberry)
   (Case T-435/08) (1)

   2009/C 193/54

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/44

         Action brought on 29 December 2003 by Ulrike Eppe against European Parliament
   (Case T-439/03)
   (2004/C 94/126)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the European Parliament was brought against the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 December 2003 by Ulrike Eppe, residing in Hanover (Germany), represented by D. Rogalla, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decisions of 24 February 2003, 28 April 2003 and 17 September 2003;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-412/03 (Wille v Parliament, not yet published).


title: Case T-106/01: Action brought on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 227/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.8.2001
Pleas in law                   — The Board of Appeal ignored              becoming established on 1 April 1985. The applicant conse-
                                   the fact that the conflicting          quently pleads infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to
                                   mark consisted not of the term         the Staff Regulations and breach of the general provisions for
                                   ‘miss fifties’ but of a word and       the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
                                   pictorial mark, containing a           Regulations.
                                   great variety of word and pic-
                                   torial components.
                               — There was no conceptual con-
                                   nection between ‘Fifties’ and
                                   ‘miss fifties’.
                                                                          Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines S.A.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-107/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/47)
Action brought on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum
          against the Council of the European Union                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (Case T-106/01)
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines
                         (2001/C 227/46)                                  S.A., a mining company established at Puteaux (France),
                                                                          represented by Geneviève Marty, avocat.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the implicit decision of 21 April 2001 by which
                                                                                the Commission refused to uphold the complaint lodged
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                                by the mining company Sacilor Lormines S.A. and
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                                registered on 21 February 2001 under No SG 01 A/2321;
Communities on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum, residing
in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                 —     in the alternative, annul the decision of 30 March
Peere, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                      2001 by which the Commission refused to uphold
                                                                                the complaint lodged by the mining company Sacilor
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Lormines S.A. and registered on 21 February 2001 under
                                                                                No SG 01 A/2321;
—     annul the Council’s decision of 8 June 2000 fixing the              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      calculation of the number of years of pensionable service
      with which he is to be credited pursuant to Article 11(2)
      of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations following the                Pleas in law and principal arguments
      transfer to the Community pension scheme of the
      pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry
      into service;                                                       By letter of 30 March 2001, the Commission refused to
                                                                          uphold the applicant’s complaint requesting the opening of a
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty against the
                                                                          French Government. In support of its action for a declaration
                                                                          of failure to act and for annulment, the applicant pleads
                                                                          infringement by the Commission of Article 88 of the ECSC
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Treaty. According to the applicant, the French Government
                                                                          has infringed Articles 4(c) and 86 of the ECSC Treaty by
                                                                          imposing special charges on the applicant. This constitutes, it
The applicant disputes the salary taken into consideration by             claims, an unlawful act against which the Commission should
the Council when calculating the number of years of pension-              have taken action in accordance with Article 88 of the ECSC
able service to be credited to him following the transfer of the          Treaty. In addition, the applicant pleads, in the context of its
pension rights acquired by him prior to his entry into service.           action for annulment, breach of the essential procedural
According to the applicant, the Council should have taken                 requirements of the decision of 30 March 2001 and violation
into consideration the salary received by him upon his entry              of the principle of sound administration.
into service on 1 November 1983, initially as a member of the
auxiliary staff and subsequently as a member of the temporary
staff, and not the salary corresponding to his grade upon


title: Action brought on 18 January 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-17/95)

text:
4 . 3 . 95            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/13
2. Must Article 12 (c ) and Article 3a of Regulation (EEC )            fiscal administration, since requests for refunds are usually
     No 857/84 be interpreted as requiring resumption of               revised and transmitted with, according to the complaints
     production by the actual person concerned ?                       received, delays of up to 12 months.
3 . Does Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EEC Treaty preclude a                 The Commission considers that the Spanish authorities'
     decision by a Member State, pursuant to Regulation                lack of cooperation, in not responding to its written
     No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 as amended by Regulation               requests, is by reason of the significant repercussions it has
     ( EEC ) No 764/89 ( 3 ) of 20 March 1989 , prohibiting            in this matter an infringement of Article 5 of the EC
     joint ventures and authorizing joint agricultural                 Treaty.
     holdings partly devoted to dairy farming ?
H OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 13 .
(2 ) OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 10 .
(3 ) OJ No L 84, 29 . 3 . 1989, p . 2 .                                Action brought on 18 January 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-17/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 54/23
                                                                       An Action against the French Republic was brought before
Action brought on 18 January 1995 by the Commission of                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        18 January 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                 Spain                                 Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
                          ( Case C-16/95 )                             acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,
                            ( 95/C 54/22 )                             Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
18 January 1995 by the Commission of the European                      1 . declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
Communities, represented by Blanca Rodriguez Galindo                        administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
and Enrico Traversa, both of the Legal Service, acting as                   with
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Georgios Kremlis, a member of the Legal Service of                — Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991
the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        concerning the animal health conditions governing
                                                                                the placing on the market of aquaculture animals
                                                                                and products (*),
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of 19 November
1 . declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                   1991 on the protection of animals during transport
     obligations under the Treaty:                                               and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and
                                                                                91/496/EEC ( 2), and
     (a ) in not respecting the time-limit of six months for the
           refund of value added tax to taxable persons not                 — Council Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1993
           established in the territory of the country contrary                  laying down control rules and measures to combat
           to Article 7 (4) of the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC                  African horse sickness ( 3 ),
           of 6 December 1979 on the arrangements for the
           refund of value added tax to taxable persons not                 and/or by failing to communicate them to the
           established in the territory of the country;                      Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under the penultimate articles of the said
                                                                             directives and under the EC Treaty;
     ( b) in infringing the duty of cooperation of the Member
           States laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                       2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                       Case C- 14/95 (4); the time-limits for transposition expired
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        on 1 January 1993 .
Notwithstanding the existence of Spanish legislation which             (!)  OJ No L 46, 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
is in principle in accordance with the Eighth Directive, the           (2 ) OJ No L 340, 11 . 12. 1991 , p. 17.
Commission considers that it has been shown that the                   (3)  OJ No L 157, 10. 6 . 1992, p . 19 .
time-limit of six months for the refund of VAT to taxable              (4 ) See this edition of the OJ, p . 12 .
persons not established in the territory of the country is not
always respected by the relevant department of the Spanish


title: Case T-345/05: Action brought on  5 September 2005  — V/Parliament

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/29

         Action brought on 5 September 2005 — V/Parliament
   (Case T-345/05)
   (2005/C 296/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): V. (Binsted, United Kingdom) [represented by: J. Lofthouse, barrister, M. Monan, C. Hayes, solicitors]

      Defendant(s): European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare void and annul the Decision of the European Parliament dated 5 July 2005 to waive the applicant's immunity;

               —

               declare that the said Decision, even if valid, would in any event be void as to waiver of privilege, since it speaks only of immunity; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a Member of the European Parliament. Criminal proceedings were instituted against him following which the Parliament was requested to confirm that the applicant's prosecution might proceed in accordance with the 1965 Protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Communities and, in any event, waive any privilege or immunity so that the prosecution could proceed. By the contested Decision the Parliament decided to waive the applicant's immunity.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of this Decision. He submits that the Decision was wrong in law in that it considers that Article 8 of the 1965 Protocol does not grant protection against judicial prosecution. He argues that the Parliament's reasoning is inconsistent, waiving something that it holds not to exist.
   The applicant further contends that the Parliament did not carry out a fair and complete consideration of the facts and arguments of both sides. In this context the applicant also invokes a violation of Rule 7(7) of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, to the extent that the Committee expressed an opinion on the merits of the prosecution whilst forbidden from doing so.
   The applicant finally invokes the absence of full and adequate reasons for the contested Decision and submits that it was not reasonable or proportionate.


title: Case T-61/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/43

         Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-61/06)
   (2006/C 86/82)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 12980 of 1.12.2005 concerning the certification and declaration of interim costs and request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 13683 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 13684 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999IT 16 1 PO 009);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 13687 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Piedmont (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 14013 of 19.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Tuscany Ob.2 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 001);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 14015 of 19.12.2005 concerning NOP Local Enterprise Development 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1DO 002) — Payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested;

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 14016 of 19.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Campania (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 14082 of 20.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Ob.2 Lazio 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 14108 of 20.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 014);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 14133 of 21.12.2005 concerning the certification and declaration of interim costs and request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 14154 of 21.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 009);

               —

               Annul Memorandum No 00627 of 23.01.2006 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 009);

               —

               Annul all connected and necessary measures;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.


title: Case C-114/00: Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 192/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                of registering the sign with a clarifying disclaimer (dis-
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with European               claiming any exclusive right in the words ‘company’ and
     Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December                  ‘line’).
     1994 on packaging and packaging waste within the prescribed
     period, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        There is nothing in the contested decisions to indicate that
     under that directive;                                                     any consideration was given to the rectification provision
                                                                               contained in Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94. In the
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                              case of the sign ‘Companyline’, this may explain the reason
                                                                               why the grounds of exclusion laid down in Article 7(1)(b)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                      and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 were assessed in accord-
                                                                               ance with excessively stringent criteria.
                                                                               The Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard
                                                                               to the defendant’s failure, contrary to Article 38(2) and (3)
                                                                               of Regulation No 40/94, Rule 11(2) of the implementing
Appeal brought on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche                                regulation and point 8.13.2 of the examination guidelines,
Krankenversicherung AG against the judgment delivered                          to bring pressure to bear for the inclusion of a disclaimer.
on 12 January 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court                          In reaching its decision concerning the grounds of
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                          exclusion set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94,
T-19/99 between DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung                               the Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard,
AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                            in addition, to the registration practice followed in all the
               Market (trade marks and designs)                                Member states of the Community.
                          (Case C-104/00 P)                               — Infringement of substantive law and misuse of discretion-
                                                                               ary powers: the applicant considers that the contradictions
                           (2000/C 192/11)                                     and omissions on the part of the defendant clearly and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2000                    objectively show that the decisive aim of the contested
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                        decision was to refuse registration of the sign ‘Company-
the European Communities in Case T-19/99 between DKV                           line’ under any circumstances, in disregard of the legal
Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG and the Office for Harmon-                     situation and of the defendant’s duty to promote harmonis-
isation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)                       ation. The purely formal argument as to the co-existence
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        of Community trade mark law in tandem with the national
Communities on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche Kranken-                          trade mark laws of the Member States is unconvincing,
versicherung AG, represented by Stephan von Petersdorff-                       since the Office for Harmonisation reached its decision
Campen, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs von Rospatt, von der                           without any objective determination of the facts, particu-
Osten, Pross, of Kaiser-Friedrich-Ring 56, D-40547 Düsseldorf,                 larly as regards the decision-making practice followed in
assisted by Alfred Maxton, patent attorney, of Messrs Maxton                   the United Kingdom, and failed to weigh up and reconcile
& Langmaack, of Goltsteinstrasse 93, D-50968 Cologne, with                     the interests involved in such a way as to fulfil its obligation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                   to ensure co-existence.
Loesch, of Messrs De Bandt, van Heckel, Lagae & Loesch,
11 Rue Goethe, L-1011 Luxembourg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the contested decisions;                                      Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                ties
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (Case C-114/00)
— Infringement of substantive law, in particular Arti-
     cle 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94: excessively                                       (2000/C 192/12)
     stringent criteria were applied in assessing the eligibility
     for registration of the sign ‘Companyline’. Instead of               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     assessing the overall impression produced by the sign                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     ‘Companyline’, the contested decisions merely considered,            Communities on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
     in isolation, the component words ‘company’ and ‘line’               represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
     together making up the composite sign. The numerous                  acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     possible meanings said to attach to the words by way                 the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
     of association are not apparent. Having regard to the
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     registration practice followed in the Member States of the
     Community (including English-speaking Member States)                 1) annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
     and the defendant’s decision-making practice in relation to               concerning aid to finance operating capital in the agricul-
     comparable signs, registration of the sign ‘Companyline’                  tural sector in Extremadura;
     should not have been refused under Article 7(1)(b) of
     Regulation No 40/94. No use was made of the possibility              2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 192/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   products to agricultural industries in Extremadura. It is
                                                                                intended solely to promote stable relations between
— Manifest error of assessment, in that part of the aid                           local producers and local processing industries, by
    declared by the Commission to be incompatible has not                         ensuring supplies of raw materials to the latter (this
    been paid; no aid payments were effected after 30 June                        being something which the market alone seems to be
    1998.                                                                         unable to guarantee).
                                                                              — The Commission maintains that the criteria laid down
— Infringement of Articles 253 EC and 87(1) EC, on account                        in its Communication on aid in the form of subsidised
    of the absence of a statement of reasons concerning the                       short-term loans (OJ C 44 of 16.2.1996, p. 2) are not
    effect on trade between Member States and non-fulfilment                      fulfilled. However, if the aid is not granted to all
    of the criterion of the existence of such an effect on trade:                 operators in the agricultural sector, the products
    the contested decision lacks even the minimum statement                       concerned are determined in a non-discriminatory
    of reasons which must be given regarding the effect on                        manner as regards aid to industries which enter into
    trade between Member States of aid granted in a form                          contracts for the processing of the raw materials
    which distorts or threatens to distort competition in the                     purchased by them. Moreover, there is no discrimi-
    common market.                                                                nation, since the excluding criterion is not that a
                                                                                particular sector must be involved but that operators
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(a) EC, in conjunction with                        in any of the sectors concerned must have agreed to
    Article 253 EC:                                                               standardise their contractual relations; any sector
                                                                                which approves a regional contract becomes eligible
    — According to the Commission, aid to industries granted                      to receive aid. Furthermore, the interest-rate rebates
         prior to 30 June 1998 cannot fall within any of the                      exclusively affect the financing arrangements for the
         derogations, provided for in Article 87(3), since it                     purchase of agricultural products pursuant to the
         adversely affects trading conditions by imposing                         approved contracts. The aid has a lasting effect on the
         restrictions on the free movement of goods. However,                     development of the sector, since it has contributed to
         that assertion is incorrect: such an adverse effect on                   the establishment of coordinated, stable contractual
         trade may prevent Article 87(3)(a) from applying, but                    relations between the industry and the primary sector,
         not Article 87(3)(a).                                                    and its effects have proved capable of developing an
                                                                                industrial framework and of providing security for the
                                                                                rural population. Finally, in view of the amounts
    — The Commission considers that the derogation con-                           received by the farmers concerned, it is difficult to see
         tained in Article 87(3)(a) EC is inapplicable because the                in what way the common organisation of the market
         aid was granted not as regional aid but as operating                     for the products in question can have been affected.
         aid for the agricultural sector. The Commission’s
         reasoning is inconsistent. The aid is intended to
         promote economic development in a region where the
         standard of living is low and there is very serious
         unemployment. In particular, the industrial aid scheme
         had a clear social purpose, in that it sought to introduce
         stable relations between producers and processors,
         protecting them by means of officially approved
         contracts for the sale and purchase of raw materials             Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Commission of
         and thereby ensuring supplies to the processing indus-           the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
         tries and the location of those industries in the
         production areas. In view of the foregoing, the Com-
         mission should have reasoned that the aid did not fall                                   (Case C-139/00)
         within the scope of Article 87(3)(a) EC, despite the fact
         that the measures concerned are specific rather than                                     (2000/C 192/13)
         general. It should also, at the very least, have provided
         justification for its decision, adopted in the exercise of
         its discretion, not to authorise small-scale aid designed        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
         to mitigate an abnormally serious situation within the           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 April
         Community. By failing to do so, it has infringed                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
         Article 253 EC.                                                  represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC:                                    Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, C 254, Wagner Centre.
    — The Commission maintains that the aid scheme in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
         question restricts the free movement of goods
         (Article 28 EC), in that it may adversely affect trade.          (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
         That does not prevent the derogation from applying.                  order to ensure, with regard to the three automatic waste
         The scheme does not preclude undertakings in other                   incineration plants located at Mazo and Barlovento on the
         Member States from introducing and selling their                     island of Palma, the application of:


title: Case T-217/14: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission (Action for annulment — Replacement of the contested act during proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/53

         Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission
   (Case T-217/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Replacement of the contested act during proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 038/70)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Kosakowo, Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, S. Noë and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)
   Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2014/883/EU of 11 February 2014 on the measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 51).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Gmina Kosakowo as regards the main proceedings.

               3.

               Gmina Kosakowo shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Commission as regards the proceedings for interim relief.

               4.

               The Republic of Poland shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Case C-84/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 February 2011 — Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 February 2011 — Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala
   (Case C-84/11)
   2011/C 145/13
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala

      Other parties: Helsingin yliopiston apteekki, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus FIMEA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 49 TFEU, which deals with the right of establishment under EU law, to be interpreted to mean that it precludes application of the provisions of Finland’s Law on Medicines with respect to the pharmacies operating licence scheme, for the reason that conditions set for Helsinki University Pharmacy to set up branch pharmacies differ from the conditions set for private pharmacies as follows:

                           (a)

                           By a licence granted by Finnish Medicines Agency (‘FIMEA’) on the basis of Paragraph 52(1) of the Law on Medicines, a private branch pharmacy may be set up in an area which (because of the sparseness of its population) cannot be regarded as having adequate operational prerequisites for an independent pharmacy, but where (for the availability of medicines) a pharmacy business is required; and a private pharmacist may, on the basis of a separate licence granted for each branch pharmacy, operate a maximum of three branch pharmacies. On the other hand, a branch pharmacy of Helsinki University Pharmacy may be set up by a licence granted in each case by FIMEA on the basis of Paragraph 52(3) of the Law on Medicines, and discretion in the granting of such a licence is not limited by the provisions of the Law on Medicines or by other national regulations in any way other than that Helsinki University may have a maximum of 16 branch pharmacies.

                           (b)

                           When determining the place of establishment of a private branch pharmacy, FIMEA must take account of the location of the pharmacy. There is no corresponding regulation regarding the places of location of Helsinki University Pharmacy branch pharmacies, and these branch pharmacies are located in various parts of Finland.

               2.

               If the Court of Justice takes the view that, in the light of the answers to the questions set out above, Article 49 TFEU precludes the branch pharmacy licence scheme as it applies to Helsinki University Pharmacy, the Supreme Administrative Court requests a preliminary ruling from the Court Of Justice on the following questions:

                           (a)

                           is the restriction on the freedom of establishment stemming from Helsinki University Pharmacy’s branch pharmacy licence scheme justified by overriding reasons in the general interest arising from its particular tasks relating to pharmacological services and pharmacy teaching, which are necessary and in accordance with the principle of proportionality, taking account of the fact that no corresponding particular tasks are laid down in the case of its branch pharmacies?

                           (b)

                           do the particular tasks, explained above, laid down in law with respect to Helsinki University Pharmacy mean that it may be regarded as an undertaking providing services of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106(2) TFEU, and if so, does the said TFEU provision give entitlement to derogate from the requirements regarding administrative advance authorisation set by Article 49 TFEU and by the case-law of the Court of Justice in the case of Helsinki University’s branch pharmacies, taking account of the fact that no corresponding particular duties are stipulated in the case of Helsinki University Pharmacy branch pharmacies?


title: Notice of an Open Competition

text:
No C 28 / 8                        Official Journal of the European Communities                            3 . 2 . 95
                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                           Notice of an Open Compétition
                                                    (95/C 28 /08)
            The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of
            the European Communities No C 28 A of 3 February 1995 the following notice of Open
            Competition :
            French language version :
            Open Competition No CJ/A/ 10 (Administrators with French legal education)
            To obtain a copy of that Official Journal, please contact the Personnel Division of the Court
            of Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.


No C 354/36             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23 . 11 . 96
   Partial removal from the register of Case T-221/95 ( )            Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                          ( 96/C 354/69 )                            from the register of Case T-37/96 : Luftfartsfunktionsererne
                                                                     v. Commission of the European Communities .
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     f 1 ) OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
By order of 7 October 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de
Telediffusion SA, NV Verenigd Bezit VNU, RTL4 SA and
Veronica Omroep Organisatie from the list of applicants in
Case T-221 /95 : Endemol Entertainment Holding BV and
Others v. Commission of the European Communities .                           Removal from the register of Case T-52/96 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/71 )
(') OJ No C 64 , 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
       Removal from the register of Case T-37/96 ( )                 By order of 14 October 1996 the President of the Second
                                                                     Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                          ( 96/C 354/70 )
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case T-52/96 : Sogecable SA v.
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities .
By order of 24 September 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               (') OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-511/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij) v Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV and Others (Human and animal health — Protection against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) — Feeding of ruminants with proteins derived from species other than ruminants — Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which it may be held responsible — Applicable law — Obligation to bring an action against the Commission for failure to act)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Case C-511/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij) v Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV and Others (1)

   (Human and animal health - Protection against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) - Feeding of ruminants with proteins derived from species other than ruminants - Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which it may be held responsible - Applicable law - Obligation to bring an action against the Commission for failure to act)
   (2005/C 315/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-511/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), made by decision of 5 December 2003, received at the Court on 8 December 2003, in the proceedings between Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij) and Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, Ten Kate Produktie Maatschappij BV — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Community law does not impose any obligation on a Member State to bring an action for annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, or for failure to act, pursuant to Article 232 EC, for the benefit of one of its citizens. Community law does not, however, in principle preclude national law from containing such an obligation or providing for liability to be imposed on the Member State for not having acted in such a way.

               2.

               Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 94/381/EC of 27 June 1994 concerning certain protection measures with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the feeding of mammalian derived protein, read in conjunction with Article 17 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market and with Article 17 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market, must be construed as meaning that, if the material available to the Commission does not enable it to establish that the controls carried out within the framework of a system which makes it possible to distinguish between animal protein of ruminant origin and that of non-ruminant origin, submitted for its appraisal by a Member State with a view to obtaining authorisation, offer adequate guarantees in regard to the protection of public health, and if the matter has been referred to the Standing Veterinary Committee at the request of a Member State but that Committee has not taken a position, particularly by reason of new information altering the perception of the risk to public health, the Commission is not obliged to submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.


title: Case T-366/14: Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM (2good)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/48

         Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM (2good)
   (Case T-366/14)
   2014/C 253/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A. Richter, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in case R 996/2013-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘2good’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 1 1 33  636

      Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova - Sezione Sesta Civile by order of that court of 18 December 1996 in the case of Palmira Ieropoli and Giovanni Sgambellone against Banca Carige SpA (Case C-23/97)

text:
 No C 74/ 16              EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 3 . 97
 2. Is it contrary, with respect in particular to a farmer                      a uniform and binding manner by the member banks
       who lives for most of the year in another Member                         — are, taken as a whole, compatible with Article 85
       State of the EU together with his or her spouse who is                   of the Treaty, in relation to the individual clauses
       the other owner of the said farm and works as                            discussed in the grounds of this order, in that they are
       a diplomatic representative of the Finnish State, to                     liable adversely to affect trade between the Member
       the prohibition of discrimination, the principle of                      States and have as their object and effect the
       proportionality or other principles to be observed in                    prevention, restriction or distortion of competition
       Community law to exclude him or her from the                             within the common market;
       compensation in question ?
                                                                           4 . what effects any finding of incompatibility in
 (') OJ No L 218 , 6 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                       accordance with question 3 may have on the
 (2 ) OJ No L 128 , 19 . 5 . 1975 , p. 1 .                                      corresponding clauses of the 'all-embracing' guarantee
                                                                                agreements and on the agreements themselves
                                                                                concluded 'downstream' by individual banks, since, as
                                                                                a group, the banks belonging to the ABI may be
                                                                                regarded, within the meaning and for the purposes of
                                                                                Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a joint dominant
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                          position in the national credit market, whose specific
Genova — Sezione Sesta Civile by order of that court of                         application of the rules in question is regarded as an
 18 December 1996 in the case of Palmira Ieropoli and                           abuse .
        Giovanni Sgambellone against Banca Carige SpA
                             ( Case C-23/97 )
                               ( 97/C 74/32 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Action brought on 17 January 1997 by the Commission of
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Geno                    the European Communities against the Federal Republic
va — Sezione Sesta Civile ( Genoa District Court, Sixth                                                 of Germany
Civil Chamber ) of 18 December 1996, which was received                                              ( Case C-24/97)
at the Court Registry on 17 January 1997, for a                                                        ( 97/C 74/33 )
preliminary ruling in the case of Palmira Ieropoli and
Giovanni Sgambellone against Banca Carige SpA on the
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
following questions :
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 17 January 1997 by the Commission of
1 . whether the Norma Bancarie Uniforme (Uniform Bank                     the European Communities, represented by Peter
      Rules ) laid down by the ABI ( Associazione Bancaria                Hillenkamp and Peter Jan Kuijper, of its Legal Service,
      Italiana ) for its members in relation to contracts for             acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      the opening of current account credit facilities — since            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
      they are laid down and applied in a uniform and                     its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
      binding manner by the banks belonging to the ABI —                  Luxembourg.
      are compatible with Article 85 of the Treaty, where
      they make the credit facility subject to conditions for             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      determination      of      an  interest rate  which    is  not
      previously determined and is not determinable by the                — declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has
      customer, and they are liable adversely to affect trade                  failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 , 52 and
      between the Member States and have as their object                       59 of the EC Treaty and under Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council
      and effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of                  Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the
      competition within the common market;                                    abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                               within the Community for workers of Member States
2 . what effects any finding of incompatibility in                             and their families (') and under Article 4 ( 1 ) of
      accordance with question 1 may have on the                               Council Directive 73/ 148/EEC on the abolition of
      corresponding clauses of the contracts for the opening                   restrictions on movement and residence within the
      of a current account credit facility, concluded                          Community for nationals of Member States with
      'downstream' by member banks with individual                             regard to establishment and the provision of
      customers, since, as a group, the banks belonging to                     services ( 2 ) in so far as under paragraph 12 a ( 2 ) and
      the ABI may be regarded, within the meaning and for                      ( 3 ) of the AufenthG/EWG ( Law on residence of EC
      the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a                   Community nationals ) non-German Community
      joint dominant position in the national credit market,                   nationals in the Federal Republic of Germany are
      whose specific application of the rules in question (in                  treated, as regards the degree of fault and scale of
      connection with determination of the interest payable                    fines, disproportionately differently from German
      on the loan ) is regarded as an abuse;                                   nationals who commit a comparable infringement of
                                                                               the obligation to prove their identity ( paragraph 5 ( 1 )
3 . whether the NBU laid down by the ABI for its                               and (2 ) of the PersonalausweisG ( Law on identity
      members in relation to the 'all-embracing' guarantee                     cards ) in conjunction with paragraph 17 ( 1 ) of the
      covering the credit facility — since they are applied in                 OWiG ( Law on administrative offences )),


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-489/01: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 97/9/EC — Territory of Gibraltar)

text:
29.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 289/5
1.    Declares that, by keeping in force legislation under which              of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
      products in respect of which there has not yet been full                Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels flying the          given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:
      Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate of conformity
      has been issued by a national body — so that in some cases the
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      right to market the products is enjoyed only by the grantee of
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply, as regards the
      the certificate — and by not recognising the validity of tests
                                                                                territory of Gibraltar, with Directive 97/9/EC of the European
      carried out in accordance with international standards by bodies
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-
      recognised in the other Member States, even where the relevant
                                                                                compensation schemes the United Kingdom of Great Britain
      information is made available to the competent authority and
                                                                                and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      it is clear from the certificates that the equipment guarantees a
                                                                                Article 15 of that directive;
      degree of safety equivalent to that required for Italian products,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 28 EC;                                                          2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                              in Case C-2/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz): Emil Färber GmbH & Co.
                        of 16 October 2003                                                       v Landkreis Alzey-Worms (1)
in Case C-489/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         (Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73/EEC)
                               Ireland (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/09)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
  to implement Directive 97/9/EC — Territory of Gibraltar)                                        (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2003/C 289/08)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              In Case C-2/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                              by the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz (Germany) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
In Case C-489/01, Commission of the European Communities                      Emil Färber GmbH & Co. and Landkreis Alzey-Worms, on the
(Agent: C. Tufvesson) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   interpretation of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, indent (a), to
Northern Ireland (Agents: G. Amodeo): Application for a                       Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and               financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by
administrative provisions necessary to comply, as regards the                 Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/
territory of Gibraltar, with Directive 97/9/EC of the European                496/EEC (OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended and consolidated
Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-                    by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 (OJ 1996
compensation schemes (OJ 1997 L 84, p. 22) or, in any case,                   L 162, p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
by not notifying the measures to the Commission, the United                   R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to                   ris and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-
fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive, the                F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President                  a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-346/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Interim measures — Waiving of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case T-346/11 R)
   (Interim measures - Waiving of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 347/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 waiving the applicant’s immunity.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-379/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission (Interim relief — Environment — Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC — Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision — Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission
   (Case T-379/11 R)
   (Interim relief - Environment - Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC - Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision - Application for interim measures - Admissibility - Urgency)
   2011/C 347/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH (Duisburg, Germany); Rogesa — Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany); Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH (Salzgitter, Allemagne); ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg); and voestalpine Stahl GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-148/94: Preussag Stahl AG v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices - Price-fixing - Market sharing - Systems for the exchange of information)

text:
5.6.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 160/15
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 11 March 1999                                                            of 11 March 1999
                                                                            in Case T-148/94: Preussag Stahl AG v. Commission of
in Case T-147/94: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v. Commission                                         the European Communities (1)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between                            undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and
undertakings — Price-fixing — System for the exchange of                   concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —
                             information)                                               Systems for the exchange of information)
                           (1999/C 160/29)                                                             (1999/C 160/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           In case T-148/94: Preussag Stahl AG, established in Salzgitter
In case T-147/94: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG, established in                    (Germany), represented by Horst Satzky and Bernhard
Dortmund (Germany), represented, by Otfried Lieberknecht                   M. Maassen, of the Brussels Bar, Martin Heidenhain, Rechtsan-
and, during the oral procedure, by Martin Klusmann, Rechtsan-              walt, Frankfurt, and Constantin Frick, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen,
wälte, Dusseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62, avenue Guillaume, v.                     René Faltz, 6, rue Heine, v. Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                  Communities (Agents: initially Julian Currall, Norbert Lorenz
Julian Currall, Norbert Lorenz and Géraud Sajust de Bergues,               and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and subsequently Jean-Louis
and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy                 Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charrier, assisted by Heinz-
Charrier, assisted by Heinz-Joachim Freund) — application,                 Joachim Freund) — application, principally, for the annulment
principally, for the annulment of Commission Decision                      of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994
94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding                   relating to a proceeding pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC
pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agree-                Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged
ments and concerted practices engaged in by European                       in by European producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1)
producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court                  — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                  Composition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki                A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for           trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in                   1999, in which it:
which it:
                                                                           1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
1. fixes at EUR 9 000 the amount of the fine imposed on the                     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
     applicant by article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of               65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article 65           practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as
     of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices           it finds that the applicant participated in a price-fixing agreement
     engaged in by European producers of beams,                                 on the German market which lasted three months,
                                                                           2. fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4
2. dismisses the remainder of the action,                                       of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 8 600 000,
                                                                           3. dismisses the remainder of the action,
3. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
     defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
                                                                           4. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths
                                                                                of the defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear one fifth of its
                                                                                own costs.
(1) OJ C 174, 25.6.1994.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 161, 11.6.1994.


title: Case T-142/99: Action brought on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l., as promoter of Sonda s.r.l., against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 246/40              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.8.1999
Action brought on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l. against                     — Manifest contradiction, inadequacy and illogicality of the
         Commission of the European Communities                                statement of reasons as regards the alleged lack of partici-
                                                                               pation in joint funding and justification of certain invoiced
                                                                               expenses.
                        (Case T-141/99)
                                                                          — Breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection
                        (1999/C 246/79)                                        of legitimate expectations. The applicant took all the
                                                                               measures and action provided for in the decision awarding
                                                                               the grant, bearing all the expenses mentioned therein. That
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             fact, together with the positive outcome of the checks
                                                                               undertaken by the defendant before paying each of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      individual instalments of the Community grant, caused the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     applicant to entertain the legitimate expectation that its
European Communities on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l.,                           conduct had been procedurally and substantively correct.
represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari, Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier                In particular, the applicant considered, until it received the
Francesco Meneghini, of the Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars,                      letter of objections of 3 April 1998, that it had lawfully
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   implemented the project, above all following the second
Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.                                           check prior to payment of the final balance.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             Finally, breach is alleged of the principle of proportionality.
— Annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of 9 March
    1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
    to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be                   laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
    decided in the course of the proceedings;                                 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of
                                                                              24.12.1994, p. 11).
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of
9 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made by the
Commission under Commission Decision C (92) 1494 of 30
June 1992 concerning grant of the EAGGF, Guidance Section,                Action brought on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l., as promoter
contribution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1),               of Sonda s.r.l., against Commission of the European
in connection with Project No 92.IT.06.001 entitled ‘Action                                         Communities
in the form of a demonstrative project for the introduction
and promotion of cylindrical luffa in disadvantaged European                                       (Case T-142/99)
areas’.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/80)
In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas:
— Infringement and misapplication of the Treaty and of                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
    secondary law and misuse of powers. The two legal
    bases relied on by the Commission, Article 23 of the
    abovementioned regulation, on which it based its on-the-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    spot inspection carried out from 10 to 12 November                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    1997, and Article 24 thereof, on which it based its letter            European Communities on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l., as
    of objections of 3 April 1998 and the subsequent decision             promoter of Sonda s.r.l., represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari,
    cancelling and withdrawing the grant, are not correct. The            Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier Francesco Meneghini, of the
    applicant also considers that either the project in question          Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars, with an address for service in
    was presented, carried out and monitored without the                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert
    participation of the Member State concerned, in which                 Premier.
    case the defendant is not entitled to apply Article 23 of the
    Regulation, since the application of those provisions                 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    presupposes the joint participation of the Member State
    and the Community; or else, if the project in question was
    presented, carried out and monitored jointly with the                 — Annul Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of 4 March
    Member State concerned, it is not clear why the Com-                       1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant
    mission involved the Italian Republic only at the stage of                 to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be
    objecting to the alleged irregularities on the part of the                 decided in the course of the proceedings;
    beneficiary, without however allowing the latter properly
    to express its views in that procedure.                               — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/41
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 26 March 1999 (Decision C(1999) 760
                                                                              final) by which it rejected the request made by the Kingdom
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of                    of Belgium, for the benefit of Miller NV, seeking a waiver
4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one                      of post-clearance recovery of import duties in respect of
of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission                        television sets imported from Turkey during the period
Decision C (93) 3401 of 26 November 1992 concerning grant                     from 5 June 1991 to 26 February 1992 or the remission
of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under Council                    of those duties;
Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1), in connection with Project
No 92.IT.06.057 entitled ‘Action in the form of a pilot                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
demonstrative project for the reduction of production costs
and fertiliser costs in sunflower cultivation’.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
                                                                          — Infringement of the rights of the defence:
Case T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.
                                                                              By not allowing Miller NV to inspect the administrative
                                                                              file, the Commission infringed an essential procedural
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
     laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No              requirement and failed to respect Miller’s rights of defence.
     2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of
     24.12.1994, p. 11).                                                  — Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79:
                                                                              The Commission wrongly concluded in the contested
                                                                              decision (1) that there was no question in the present
                                                                              case of any error having been made by the competent
                                                                              authorities, and (2) that Miller NV had not acted in good
                                                                              faith, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No
                                                                              1697/79.
                                                                          — Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV against the
          Commission of the European Communities                              Regulation No 1430/79:
                                                                              The Commission wrongly found in the contested decision
                           (Case T-147/99)                                    that the first of the conditions for the application of the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 13 — namely, the existence of
                                                                              special circumstances — had not been met in the present
                          (1999/C 246/81)                                     case.
                                                                          — Failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
                     (Language of the Case: Dutch)                            statement of reasons (Article 253 EC).
                                                                          — In the alternative, breach of the principle of pro-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     portionality:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV,                            By requiring Miller NV to pay import duties in an amount
established at Willebroek (Belgium), represented by Y. Van                    greater than the countervailing charge, the Commission
Gerven and I. Bernaerts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address                 committed a breach of the principle of proportionality.
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to produce all documents on which
                                                                          Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber
      it based its contested decision, together with all documents
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
      — including those of an administrative nature — relating
      to this matter, including, for example, those which
      prompted it to organise a mission to Turkey in 1993 for                                      (Case: T-149/99)
      the purposes of carrying out an investigation into the issue
      of ATR certificates for television sets, the results of that                                 (1999/C 246/82)
      mission and the reports drawn up in relation to it, any
      correspondence on that subject between the Commission
      and the Member States and between the Commission and                                  (Language of the case: German)
      the Turkish authorities, etc., in order that the same may be
      examined by the Court, and require those documents also             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      to be produced to Miller NV, in order to enable the latter          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      to examine whether it may use them by way of further                European Communities on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber,
      support for its application in the present case and the pleas       Köln, represented by Anja Bornemann of Leinen & Derichs,
      advanced therein;                                                   Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.