title: Case C-381/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(1)(b) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Determination of the place of performance of the obligation — Criteria for distinguishing between sale of goods and provision of services )

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl
   (Case C-381/08) (1)

   (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(1)(b) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Determination of the place of performance of the obligation - Criteria for distinguishing between ‘sale of goods’ and ‘provision of services’)
   2010/C 100/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Car Trim GmbH

      Defendant: KeySafety Systems Srl

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Contract for the supply of goods to be manufactured also including instructions from the customer with regard to the provision, fabrication and delivery of the components to be produced, including a guarantee of the quality of production, reliability of delivery and smooth administrative handling of the contract — Criteria for a distinction between sale of goods and supply of services — Determination of the place of performance of the obligation in the case of a sale involving the carriage of goods.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that where the purpose of contracts is the supply of goods to be manufactured or produced and, even though the purchaser has specified certain requirements with regard to the provision, fabrication and delivery of the components to be produced, the purchaser has not supplied the materials and the supplier is responsible for the quality of the goods and their compliance with the contract, those contracts must be classified as a ‘sale of goods’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of that regulation.

               2.

               The first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a sale involving carriage of goods, the place where, under the contract, the goods sold were delivered or should have been delivered must be determined on the basis of the provisions of that contract. Where it is impossible to determine the place of delivery on that basis, without reference to the substantive law applicable to the contract, that place is the place where the physical transfer of the goods took place, as a result of which the purchaser obtained, or should have obtained, actual power of disposal over those goods at the final destination of the sales transaction.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 1998 in Case C-162/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln): appeal brought by Hans-Jürgen Hartmann against an administrative fine (Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded between certain Member States under Article 8 of Directive 93/89/EEC - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
23.1.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 20/15
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 It is for the national court to determine whether a breach
                                                                    of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations or
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                    of the principle of legal certainty has been committed by
                    of 3 December 1998                              the retroactive repeal of a law in respect of which the
                                                                    implementing decree has not been adopted.
in Case C-381/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance, Nivelles): Belgocodex
                    SA v. Belgian State (1)                         (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.
(First and Sixth VAT Directives Ð Letting and leasing of
     immovable property Ð Right to opt for taxation)
                        (1999/C 20/23)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 November 1998
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                    in Case C-162/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
         published in the European Court Reports)                   the Oberlandesgericht Köln): appeal brought by
                                                                      Hans-Jürgen Hartmann against an administrative fine (1)
In Case C-381/97, reference to the Court under Article 177          (Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de           between certain Member States under Article 8 of
Nivelles (Belgium) in the proceedings pending before that            Directive 93/89/EEC Ð Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
court between: Belgocodex SA and Belgian State Ð
                                                                                (1999/C 20/24)
application for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation
of Article 2 of the First Council Directive (67/227/EEC) of
11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English
Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and of Article 13C of the
Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1997 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value                           published in the European Court Reports)
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145,
13.6.1977, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the First Chamber,
                                                                    In Case C-162/98: reference to the Court under Article 177
acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht Köln
de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet,
                                                                    (Germany) for a preliminary ruling, in the appeal against
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                    an administrative fine brought before that court by
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    Hans-Jürgen Hartmann, on the interpretation of
3 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                    Article 4(1) of the Agreement of 9 February 1994 on the
                                                                    levying of charges for the use of certain roads by heavy
                                                                    commercial vehicles, concluded between the governments
Article 2 of the First Council Directive (67/227/EEC) of            of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of
11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of                Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of
Member States concerning turnover taxes is to be                    Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
interpreted as not precluding a Member State which                  (Bundesgesetzblatt 1994, Part II, p. 1768) Ð the Court
                                                                    (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                    (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and
Ð has availed itself of the possibility provided for by             H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
    Article 13C of the Sixth Council Directive                      Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order
    (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation                on 12 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
    of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover           follows:
    taxes Ð Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment, and
                                                                    The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the
                                                                    reference for a preliminary ruling made by the
Ð has thus granted its taxpayers the right to opt for               Oberlandesgericht Köln by order of 13 March 1998.
    taxation of certain lettings of immovable property
                                                                    (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
from abolishing, by a subsequent law, that right of option
and thus reintroducing the exemption.


title: Case C-100/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014  — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Rules of a Member State requiring that certain construction products bearing the ‘CE’ conformity marking conform to additional national standards — Lists of construction rules ( ‘Bauregellisten’ ))

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/5

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-100/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Rules of a Member State requiring that certain construction products bearing the ‘CE’ conformity marking conform to additional national standards - Lists of construction rules (‘Bauregellisten’)))
   (2014/C 462/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing, through lists of construction rules referred to in the Construction Codes established by the Länder, on construction products covered by the harmonisation measures EN 681-2:2000, ‘Elastomeric Seals — Materials requirements for pipe joint seals used in water and drainage applications — Part 2: Thermoplastic elastomers’, EN 13162:2008, ‘Thermal insulation products for buildings — Factory made mineral wool (MW) products — Specification’ and EN 13241-1, ‘Industrial, commercial and garage doors and gates — Product standard — Part 1: Products without fire resistance or smoke control characteristics’, and bearing the ‘CE’ marking, additional requirements for effective market access of those products and their use on German territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-350/08: Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Lithuania

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/9

         Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Lithuania
   (Case C-350/08)
   (2008/C 247/16)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Steiblytė and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Lithuania
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by retaining in force the national authorisation for the marketing of the medicinal product ‘Grasalva’, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to meet its obligations under Article 6(1) of and Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC (1), as amended by Directive 2003/63/EC (2), under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (3) and under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (4);

               —

               order the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               (i)

               The Republic of Lithuania is required, under Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, to examine whether marketing authorisations issued prior to accession comply with the requirements of the Community legislation on pharmaceutical products in force at the time of accession and, as from 1 May 2004, to ensure that only medicinal products the authorisations for which comply with those requirements are placed on the market.

               (ii)

               The medicinal product ‘Grasalva’ is not mentioned in Appendix A to Annex IX to the 2003 Act of Accession and for that reason the provisions relating to the transitional period cannot be applied to it and, as from 1 May 2004, this medicinal product could be marketed only if it complied with all of the Community-law requirements in force for similar biological medicinal products with regard to quality, safety and efficacy, in particular those laid down in Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/63/EC.

               (iii)

               The competent institutions of the Republic of Lithuania have themselves established that the documents relating to the medicinal product ‘Grasalva’ do not contain any information concerning pre-clinical or clinical trials provided in accordance with Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/63/EC, concerning compliance by the medicinal product ‘Grasalva’ with the safety and efficacy requirements applied to similar biological medicinal products.

               (iv)

               The national marketing authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Grasalva’ fails to meet the requirements of Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/63/EC, with the result that, as from the date of accession, that medicinal product could be placed on the market only if marketing authorisation for it had been granted centrally pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (applied up to 20 November 2005) or Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (applicable from 21 November 2005).

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

      (2)  Commission Directive 2003/63/EC of 25 June 2003 amending Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2003 L 159, p. 46).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).


title: Case C-290/02: Action brought on 8 August 2002 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Breach of Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC)                   —      annul Article 2 of the Commission’s decision of 5 June
       No 1663/95 (2): the Commission adopted the decision                        2002 concerning the fiscal exemptions and loans on
       which is the subject of this action, including certain                     preferential terms granted by Italy in favour of public-
       corrections differing from those which may be directly                     service undertakings in the capital of which the State
       inferred from the documents produced by the Kingdom                        holds a majority interest, which reads as follows:
       of Spain, thereby failing to observe the procedure laid
       down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95, which
       required it to wait for a reply from the Member State,                     ‘The three-year exemption from income tax provided for
       then to initiate a bilateral discussion to assess the                      by Article 3(70) of Law No 549 of 28 December 1995
       seriousness of the infringement and the harm caused to                     and by Article 66(14) of Decree-Law No 331 of 30 August
       the European Community, and, where appropriate, to                         1993, as converted into law by Law No 427 of 29 Octo-
       allow the Member State to take part in the conciliation                    ber 1993, and the advantages deriving from the loans
       procedure.                                                                 granted pursuant to Article 9a of Decree-Law No 318 of
                                                                                1 July 1986, as converted into law, with amendments, by
       As a result of that failure, Spain has been prevented from                 Law No 488 of 9 August 1986, in favour of joint-stock
       adducing evidence and from submitting the documenta-                       companies established pursuant to Law No 142 of 8 June
       tion necessary to justify the expenditure made, something                  1990 in the capital of which the State holds a majority
       which may be regarded as entailing a breach of the rights                  interest, constitute State aid within the meaning of
       of defence.                                                                Article 87(1) of the Treaty. The aid in question is not
                                                                                compatible with the common market.’
—      In the alternative: the figure to be corrected, in particular
       as regards the paying agency of Castilla-La Mancha, is
       wrong.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) Commission Decision of 12 June 2002 on the clearance of the
     accounts of Member States’ expenditure financed by the European
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee
     Section, for the 2001 financial year, OJ L 160 of 18.6.2002,
                                                                           The Italian Government maintains that the measures to which
     p. 28.                                                                the Commission’s decision relates could not be regarded as
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying           aid, at least at the time when they were adopted, and that,
     down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation         consequently, they may now be regarded as existing aid within
     (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the      the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/
     accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of 8.7.1995,        1999 (1).
     p. 6.
                                                                           Having regard to the factual and legal circumstances in
                                                                           which predominantly State-owned companies providing local
                                                                           services have been operating up until now — and, in particular,
                                                                           the system of exclusive rights which, in total compliance with
                                                                           the Treaty, has characterised the economic activities pursued
                                                                           by those companies — it has not been possible for them in
                                                                           any way to distort competition, so that the measures in
                                                                           question cannot be classified as aid within the meaning of
Action brought on 8 August 2002 by the Italian Republic
                                                                           Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case C-290/02)                                  In any event, those measures fully satisfy the conditions
                                                                           according to which they may be regarded as compatible
                                                                           aid within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) and, possibly,
                          (2002/C 233/29)                                  Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
                                                                           (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                                down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 8 August 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Maurizio Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato.


title: Case T-329/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Enercon v OHIM (E) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark E — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Enercon v OHIM (E)
   (Case T-329/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark E - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 171/59)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented initially by R. Böhm, and subsequently by R. Böhm and U. Sander, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 394/2006-1) concerning the registration of the word mark E as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326 of 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-265/17: Action brought on 5 May 2017 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/26

         Action brought on 5 May 2017 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN)
   (Case T-265/17)
   (2017/C 202/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ExpressVPN Ltd (Glen Vine, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘EXPRESSVPN’ — Application for registration No 1 265 562

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 in Case R 1352/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision to permit the mark proceed to registration on the basis that the mark is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character and the basis of the evidence of acquired distinctiveness submitted to the examiner and to the Fifth Board of Appeal;

               —

               issue an order for payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b)(c), 7(2) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-28/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd, European Data Protection Supervisor (Appeal — Access to the documents of the institutions — Document concerning a meeting held in the context of a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd, European Data Protection Supervisor
   (Case C-28/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Access to the documents of the institutions - Document concerning a meeting held in the context of a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001)
   2010/C 234/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Docksey and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and V. Jackson, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Coppel, Barrister), Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd (represented by: J. Webber and M. Readings, Solicitors), European Data Protection Supervisor (represented by: H. Hijmans, A. Scirocco and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2007 in Case T-194/04 The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities annulling the Commission's decision of 18 March 2004 refusing the applicant access to a document concerning a meeting held in connection with proceedings for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations relating to the United Kingdom provisions on the sale of beers from other Member States in public houses in the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 8 November 2007 in Case T-194/04 Bavarian Lager v Commission, in so far as it annuls the Commission’s decision of 18 March 2004, rejecting an application for access to the full minutes of the meeting of 11 October 1996, including all the names, and in so far as it orders the European Commission to pay the costs of The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd;

               2.

               Dismisses the action of The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd against the Commission’s decision of 18 March 2004, rejecting an application for access to the full minutes of the meeting of 11 October 1996, including all the names;

               3.

               Orders The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission both in the context of the present appeal proceedings and before the Court of First Instance;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Council of the European Union and the European Data Protection Supervisor to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.03.2008.


title: Joined Cases T-2/05, T-3/05, T-49/05, T-118/05 and T-119/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2007 — ReckittBenckiser v OHIM

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2007 — ReckittBenckiser v OHIM
   (Joined Cases T-2/05, T-3/05, T-49/05, T-118/05 and T-119/05) (1)

   (2007/C 283/74)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Case C-521/08: Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/21

         Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-521/08)
   (2009/C 32/35)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 255, p. 22.


title: Case C-172/15: Order of the President of the Court of 27 August 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 August 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-172/15) (1)

   (2015/C 398/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case C-355/10: Action brought on 14 July 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/34

         Action brought on 14 July 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-355/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean, A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2010/252/EU (1) of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union;

               —

               Order that the effects of the Council Decision be maintained until it is replaced;

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Parliament seeks the annulment of the contested Decision on the grounds that it exceeds the scope of the implementing power in Article 12(5) of the Schengen Borders Code (2) in that it introduces rules on ‘interception’, ‘search and rescue’ and ‘disembarkation’ which cannot be considered to be within the scope of ‘surveillance’ as defined by Article 12 of the Schengen Borders Code and which cannot be considered to be non-essential elements, and modifies the essential elements of the Schengen Borders Code which are reserved to the legislator. Moreover, the contested Decision modifies the obligations of the EU Member States relating to Frontex operations, which are laid down in the Frontex Regulation (3).
   Should the Court annul the contested Decision, Parliament nonetheless considers it would be desirable that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264 (2) TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

      (1)  Council Decision of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union
   OJ L 111, p. 20

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
   OJ L 105, p. 1

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union
   OJ L 349, p. 1


title: Case T-753/16: Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Severstal v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/39

         Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Severstal v Commission
   (Case T-753/16)
   (2017/C 014/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PAO Severstal (Cherepovets, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 of 29 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cold rolled flat steel products originating, inter alia, in the Russian Federation, published in the OJ L 210 of 04/08/2016 in its entirety insofar as it affects the Applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 18 of the Basic Regulation (1), Article 6.8 and Annex II of the ADA (2), when it considered the Applicant a partially non-cooperating producer and applied facts available to it, and made a manifest error of assessment. According to the Applicant, in addition, the consequences from partial non-cooperation were manifestly inappropriate in light of the limited deficiencies found.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the right to a fair hearing and the rights of defence of the Applicant by limiting the opportunities for the Applicant to defend itself against the Commission’s adverse findings. According to the Applicant, the Commission effectively rejected/disregarded any additional information or argument from the Applicant concerning its partial non-cooperation status.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to establish a correct dumping margin in accordance with Article 2(12) of the Basic Regulation after it breached Article 2(3), Article 2(4), misinterpreted Article 2(9), and made manifest errors of assessment and alleging that the Commission failed to make a fair comparison in accordance with Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3(2) and 3(5) of the Basic Regulation and Article 3.1 of the ADA, distorted the evidence before it and made manifest errors of assessment, by wrongly assessing the injury indicators and not carrying out an objective examination of the state of the Union industry. According to the Applicant, the Commission relied only on selected economic indicators of the state of the Union industry and neglected key indicators which would have revealed a different, more positive state of the Union industry. The Applicant further puts forward that the Commission took a biased approach favoring its injury findings and distorting evidence before it by failing to examine the ‘free’ and ‘captive’ markets of the product concerned as a whole and together for all indicators, and choosing to make a separate ‘three-way assessment’ which distorted the overall assessment.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation, as it wrongly assessed the causal link between allegedly dumped imports and the situation of the Union industry. The Applicant further puts forward that the Commission failed in its duty not to attribute other factors causing injury to the allegedly dumped imports and overlooked other factors which jointly and severally were capable of breaking the causal link.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly determined the injury elimination level, breaching Articles 2(9), 9(4) of the Basic Regulation and making a manifest error of assessment. In particular, according to the Applicant, the Commission determined an unreasonable and excessive profit margin for the Union industry and committed a manifest error of assessment in applying, for injury margin purposes, and by analogy, the adjustment for reasonable selling, general and administrative costs and a profit of an unrelated importer, foreseen in Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, p. 51).

      (2)  WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 February 1998 in Case C-245/95 P: Commission of the European Communities v. NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd, supported by NSK Ltd and Others (Appeal - Dumping - Ball-bearings originating in Japan)

text:
C 113/2               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.4.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Advocate-General and R. Grass, Registrar,              gave a
                     of 10 February 1998                            judgment on 10 February 1998, in which it:
in Case C-245/95 P: Commission of the European                      1. Dismisses the appeal.
Communities v. NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co.
         Ltd, supported by NSK Ltd and Others (1)
                                                                    2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of this
(Appeal Ð Dumping Ð Ball-bearings originating in                         appeal.
                            Japan)
                        (98/C 113/05)                               (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
               (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-245/95 P, Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Eric White and Nicholas Khan)                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                  (Fifth Chamber)
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition) of 2 May 1995 NTN Corporation and                                           of 12 February 1998
Koyo Seiko v. Council (Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94,                 in Case C-346/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
ECR II-1381) seeking to have that judgment set aside, the           the Finanzgericht München): Elisabeth Blasi v. Finanzamt
other parties to the proceedings being: NTN Corporation,                                     München I (1)
a company incorporated under Japanese law, whose
registered office is in Osaka (Japan), represented by Jürgen        (Sixth VAT Directive Ð Exemption Ð Letting of
Schwarze and Malte Sprenger, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf,             immovable property Ð Exclusion of accommodation in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        the hotel sector or in sectors with a similar function)
Chambers of Claude Penning, 78 Grand-rue; Koyo Seiko                                         (98/C 113/06)
Co. Ltd, a company incorporated under Japanese law,
whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan), represented by
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and Charles Kaplan,
barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Messrs Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 rue                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Mathias Hardt, supported by: NSK Ltd, a company                              published in the European Court Reports)
incorporated under Japanese law, whose registered office
is in Tokyo (Japan), and eight of its European subsidiaries,
NSK Bearings Europe Ltd, a company incorporated under               In Case C-346/95: reference to the Court pursuant to
English law, whose registered office is in London, NSK-             Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht
RHP France SA, a company incorporated under French                  München (Finance Court, Munich) Germany, for a
law, whose registered office is in Guyancourt (France),             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
NSK-RHP UK Ltd, a company incorporated under English                court between Elisabeth Blasi and Finanzamt München I
law, whose registered office is in Ruddington (United               Ð on the interpretation of Article 13(B)(b)(1) of sixth
Kingdom), NSK-RHP Deutschland GmbH, a company                       Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
incorporated under German law, whose registered office is           harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
in Ratingen (Germany), NSK-RHP Italia SpA, a company                to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value-added tax:
incorporated under Italian law, whose registered office is          uniform basis of assessment (2) Ð the Court (Fifth
in Milan (Italy), NSK-RHP Nederland BV, a company                   Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
incorporated under Netherlands law, whose registered                Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
office is in Amstelveen (The Netherlands), NSK-RHP                  Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
European Distribution Centre BV, a company                          F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
incorporated under Netherlands law, whose registered                Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
office is in Amstelveen (The Netherlands), and NSK-RHP              judgment on 12 February 1998, in which it has ruled:
Iberica SA, a company incorporated under Spanish law,
whose registered office is in Barcelona (Spain), all                Article 13(B)(b)(1) of sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
represented by David Vaughan QC, instructed by Robin                of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Griffith, Solicitor, with an address for service in                 Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð common
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 rue                    system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment
Zithe; Council of the European Union (Agent: Antonio                may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-
Tanca)      and     Federation    of    European      Bearing       term accommodation for guests is taxable, as constituting
Manufacturers' Associations established in Frankfurt-on-            the provision of accommodation in sectors with a function
Main (Germany), the Court, composed of G. C.                        similar to that of the hotel sector. In that regard,
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm             Article 13(B)(b)(1) does not preclude taxation in respect
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Presidents of Chambers,               of agreements concluded for a period of less than six
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.                  months, if that duration is deemed to reflect the parties'
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,           intention. It is, however, for the national court to
G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; P. LeÂger,                 determine whether, in a case before it, certain factors


title: Case T-44/17: Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/17

         Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)
   (Case T-44/17)
   (2017/C 095/27)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Camomilla Srl (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Mussi and H. Chiappetta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘CAMOMILLA’ — European Union trade mark No 7 077 555

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 in Case R 2250/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision so that CMT’s application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected in full;

               —

               in the alternative, alter the contested decision so that the application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected also in respect of the goods ‘Class 18: articles in these materials (leather and its imitations) not included in other classes, backpacks, key-holders (leather goods), briefcases, wallets, purses not of precious metal, bags, vanity cases, cases and evening bags; Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear, gloves, shawls, stoles, bathrobes’;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings before the Court, and order C.M.T. Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl to pay those relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 57(3), in conjunction with Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 21 March 2002 in Case T-231/99: Colin Joynson v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Beer supply agreements — Individual exemption — Article 81(3) EC)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/39
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
      the defendant and the intervener.                                   (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                26 February 2002
                          21 March 2002
                                                                          in Case T-323/99: Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini
                                                                          SpA (INMA) and Italia Investimenti SpA (Itainvest) v
in Case T-231/99: Colin Joynson v Commission of the                              Commission of the European Communities (1)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (State aids — Shipbuilding — Meaning of aid — Lack of
(Competition — Beer supply agreements — Individual                                                     reasoning)
                exemption — Article 81(3) EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/83)
                         (2002/C 144/82)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-231/99, Colin Joynson, residing in Manchester
(United Kingdom), represented by B. Bedford, Barrister,                   In Case T-323/99, Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini SpA
instructed by Messrs Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, v Commission            (INMA), in liquidation, established in La Spezia (Italy), rep-
of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and                       resented by S. Capparucci, Italia Investimenti SpA (Itainvest),
N. Khan), supported by Bass plc, established in London (United            established in Rome (Italy), represented in these proceedings
Kingdom), represented by M. Farquharson, J. Block and                     by G. M. Roberti and F. Sciaudone, lawyers, with an address
N. Green, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg:          for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/                    Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and, initially, A. Abate
473/EC of 16 June 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to               and E. Cappelli, and, subsequently, Abate and G. Conte):
Article 81 [EC] (Case IV/36.081/F3 — Bass) (OJ 1999 L 186,                Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/
p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed              262/EC of 20 July 1999 on State aid granted by Italy to the
of: J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges;               INMA shipyard (OJ 2000 L 83, p. 21), Court of First Instance
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it:                                 P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, J. D. Cooke, M. Vilaras
                                                                          and N. J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
                                                                          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 February 2002,
                                                                          in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those of the     1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2000/262/EC of 20 July 1999
      Commission;                                                               on State aid granted by Italy to the INMA shipyard;


title: Case C-499/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2009 — Hans-Joachim Flebbe Filmtheater GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2009 — Hans-Joachim Flebbe Filmtheater GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst
   (Case C-499/09)
   2010/C 63/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hans-Joachim Flebbe Filmtheater GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the sale of dishes or meals prepared for immediate consumption constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?

               2.

               Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether additional service elements are supplied (the provision, for use, of tables, chairs and other facilities for consumption, the experience of a visit to the cinema)?

               3.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as covering only ‘take away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1


title: Case C-118/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuarta by order of that Court of 6 February 2002 in the case of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrícola, S.A. against Administración del Estado

text:
C 144/18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.6.2002
4.   Do the legal consequences provided for by Italian Law                 with a moisture content of over 30 % and an average
     No 89 of 24 March 2001 justify the application of                     moisture content, on entry to the processing undertaking,
     Article 21 of the Brussels Convention even if a party is at           of at least 35 % measured at most every ten days
     risk of detriment as a consequence of the possible                    compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
     excessive length of proceedings before the Italian court              Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
     and therefore, as suggested in Question 3, it would not               of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
     actually be appropriate to proceed in accordance with                 No 785/95 of 6 April 1995.
     Article 21?
                                                                      3.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
5.   Under what conditions must the court other than the                   the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
     court first seised refrain from applying Article 21 of the            condition that the fodder must be kept at the processing
     Brussels Convention?                                                  plant for a maximum of 24 hours before it is processed
                                                                           compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
6.   What course of action must the court follow if, in the                Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
     circumstances described in Question 3, it is not allowed              of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
     to apply Article 21 of the Brussels Convention?                       No 785/95 of 6 April 1995?
Should it be necessary in any event, even in the circumstances        4.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
described in Question 3, to proceed in accordance with                     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention, there is no need to                 condition that the fodder must come from parcels situated
answer Questions 4, 5 and 6.                                               at a maximum distance of 100 kilometres from the
                                                                           corresponding processing plant unless, in the latter case,
                                                                           a greater distance may be justified by the use of the
                                                                           appropriate specialised transport compatible with
                                                                           Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, Article 34.2(2) EC,
                                                                           Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995
                                                                           and Commission Regulation (EC) No 785/95 of 6 April
                                                                           1995?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuar-
ta by order of that Court of 6 February 2002 in the case              (1) OJ L 063 of 21.3.1995, p. 1.
of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrı́cola, S.A. against              (2) OJ L 079 of 7.4.1995, p. 5.
                  Administración del Estado
                        (Case C-118/02)
                        (2002/C 144/29)
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
                                                                             against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala
de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuarta (Supreme                                   (Case C-123/02)
Court — Chamber for contentious administrative matters,
Fourth Chamber) of 6 February 2002, received at the Court                                     (2002/C 144/30)
Registry on 29 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrı́cola, S.A. against
Administración del Estado on the following questions:
                                                                      An action against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
1.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
                                                                      was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
                                                                      Communities on 5 April 2002 by the European Parliament,
     condition that the fodder for drying is delivered to
                                                                      represented by D. Petersheim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and
     processing undertakings chopped, and not baled compat-
                                                                      M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     ible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, the second
                                                                      Luxembourg.
     subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, Council Regulation
     (EC) No 603/95 (1) of 21 February 1995 and Commission
     Regulation (EC) No 785/95 (2) of 6 April 1995?
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the               1.   declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
     condition that the fodder must reach the processing plant             notified by RSA on 9 October and 6 November 2001;


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 March 2003 in Case C-466/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Adjudicator): Arben Kaba v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Free movement of workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Social advantage — Right of the spouse of a migrant worker to obtain leave to remain indefinitely in the territory of a Member State)

text:
26.4.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 101/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)                                                              of 6 March 2003
                       of 13 February 2003                                   in Case C-466/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Immigration Adjudicator): Arben Kaba v Secretary of
                                                                                State for the Home Department (1)
in Case C-409/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             (Free movement of workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/
                                                                             68 — Social advantage — Right of the spouse of a migrant
                                                                             worker to obtain leave to remain indefinitely in the territory
(State Aid — Transport — Commission notice on the ‘de                                                of a Member State)
minimis’ rule for State aid — Relevant market — Transport
services on own account — Transport services for hire or
reward — Community guidelines on State aid for environ-                                               (2003/C 101/09)
                         mental protection)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                          (2003/C 101/08)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                             In Case C-466/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Immigration Adjudicator (United Kingdom) for a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                   in the European Court Reports)                            tribunal between Arben Kaba and Secretary of State for the
                                                                             Home Department, on the interpretation of the general
                                                                             principles of law governing proceedings before the Court of
                                                                             Justice and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
                                                                             the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
                                                                             workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
In Case C-409/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Mónica López-                     1968 (II), p. 475), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Monís Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities                      Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen
(Agents: D. Triantafyllou and S. Pardo): Application for                     and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers),
annulment of Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 on the                      D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric,
aid scheme implemented by Spain for the purchase of                          S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-
commercial vehicles via the Cooperation Agreement of 26 Feb-                 Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
ruary 1997 between the Ministry of Industry and Energy and                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Official Credit Institute (OJ L 212 of 7.8.2001, p. 34),                 6 March 2003, in which it has ruled:
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; M.S. Alber, Advocate General;                  The reply which the Court, in its judgment in Case C-356/98 Kaba,
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             gave to the questions referred in that case for a preliminary ruling
a judgment on 13 February 2003, in which it:                                 would not have been different had the Court taken into consideration
                                                                             the fact that the situation under national law of the spouse of a
                                                                             migrant worker who is a national of a Member State other than the
1.    Annuls Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Decision 2001/605/               United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that of
      EC of 26 July 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by Spain              the spouse of a person who is ‘present and settled’ in the United
      for the purchase of commercial vehicles via the Cooperation            Kingdom are, according to the referring tribunal, comparable in all
      Agreement of 26 February 1997 between the Ministry of                  respects except with regard to the period of prior residence which is
      Industry and Energy and the Official Credit Institute.                 required for the purpose of being granted indefinite leave to remain
                                                                             in the United Kingdom. In view of the fact that the situations are not
                                                                             comparable under Community law, the question whether such a
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                             difference in treatment may be justified has no relevance in this
      the costs.
                                                                             regard.
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                   (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 94/17
      Removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-267/96 (1)
                         (98/C 94/41)                                                       (98/C 94/44)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (Reference for          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):             removal from the register of Case C-267/96: Republic of
Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-             France, supported by the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v.
wesen v. Bauer Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG.                     European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-146/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-58/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/42)
                                                                                (98/C 94/45)
By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-146/97: Commission             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                  removal from the register of Case C-58/97: Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-100/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/43)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-68/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/46)
By order of 11 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-100/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of                      By order of 20 January 1998, the President of the Court
Luxembourg.                                                        of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-68/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-224/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö (Citizenship of the Union — Article 18 EC — Right to move freely and to reside in the Member States — Attachment of remuneration — Detailed rules)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-224/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Heikki Antero Pusa v Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Article 18 EC - Right to move freely and to reside in the Member States - Attachment of remuneration - Detailed rules)
   (2004/C 118/41)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-224/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Korkein oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Heikki Antero Pusa and Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö on the interpretation of Article 18 EC — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,  C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Community law in principle precludes legislation of a Member State under which the attachable part of a pension paid at regular intervals in that State to a debtor is calculated by deducting from that pension the income tax prepayment levied in that State, while the tax which the holder of such a pension must pay on it subsequently in the Member State where he resides is not taken into account at all for the purposes of calculating the attachable portion of that pension;

               2.

               On the other hand, Community law does not preclude such national legislation if it provides for tax to be taken into account, where taking the tax into account is made subject to the condition that the debtor prove that he has in fact paid or is required to pay within a given period a specified amount as income tax in the Member State where he resides. However, that is only the case to the extent that, first, the right of the debtor concerned to have tax taken into account is clear from that legislation; secondly, the detailed rules for taking tax into account are such as to guarantee to the interested party the right to obtain an annual adjustment of the attachable portion of his pension to the same extent as if such a tax had been deducted at source in the Member State which enacted that legislation; and, thirdly, those detailed rules do not have the effect of making it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise that right.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 24.8.2002.


title: Case F-1/09: Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/53

         Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission
   (Case F-1/09)
   (2009/C 55/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the 2007 attestation procedure.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 30 September 2008 to reject the applicant's complaint relating to the decision that her application for the 2007 attestation procedure was inadmissible;

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision that her application for the 2007 attestation procedure was inadmissible;

               —

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


title: Case C-342/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid by an order of 3 September 2001 in the case of María Paz Merino Gómez against Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.

text:
C 317/16                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Action brought on 12 September 2001 by the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-323/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 5 June 2000.
                                                                                (Case C-344/01)
( 1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 1.
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/30)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Social No 33 de Madrid by an order of 3 September                            Communities on 12 September 2001 by the Federal Republic
2001 in the case of Marı́a Paz Merino Gómez against                         of Germany represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat
              Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.                        and Moritz Lumma, Oberregierungsrat, Bundesministerium
                                                                             der Finanzen, Graurheindorfter Str. 108, D-53117 Bonn.
                            (Case C-342/01)
                            (2001/C 317/29)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo Social
No 33 de Madrid (Social Court, Madrid) of 3 September 2001,                  1.    Annul the Commissions decision of 11 July 2001
which was received at the Court Registry on 12 September                           (K(2001) 1795 final) excluding from Community finan-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Paz Merino                    cing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
Grómez against Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.. The                       under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid asks the Court of Justice                     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1).
to rule on the following questions:
1.      Where collective agreements between an employer and                  2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
        workers’ representatives fix the timing of leave for the
        entire workforce, and where the dates in question coincide
        with those of a worker’s maternity leave, do Article 7(1)
        of Directive 93/104 (1), Article 11 (2) (a) of Directive
        92/85 (2) and Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207 (3) guaran-
        tee that worker’s entitlement to take annual leave during
        a period other than the one agreed, which does not                   Pleas in law and main arguments
        coincide with her period of maternity leave?
2.      If the first question is answered in the affirmative, what is        —     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
        the substantive scope of the entitlement to annual leave?                  (inadequate communication of the facts). The application
        Does it cover exclusively the four weeks’ leave referred to                of conclusions reached on the three Länder which were
        in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/104, or does it extend to                  examined for the purposes of suckler-cow premiums to
        the thirty calendar days laid down by national legislation,                the other Länder which were not examined does not
        in Article 38(1) of Royal Decree-Law 1/95, the Workers’                    appear to be justified per se having regard to the decentrali-
        Statute?                                                                   sed administrative system required by constitutional law
                                                                                in Germany. The Federal Government, rather, regards the
                                                                                grounds for refusing the premiums to those Länder which
(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
     certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 307 of              were not examined in this case to be wholly unfounded
     13.12.1993, p. 18).                                                           on a number of grounds. For that reason, similar
(2) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduc-                conclusions were not reached in the area of suckler-cow
     tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and                  premiums following very recent studies, that is to say, in
     health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have                       Brandenburg and Niedersachsen in 1996 and in Rhein-
     recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ L 348 of 28.11.1992,            land-Pfalz in 1999.
     p. 1).
(3) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and                Therefore, by reversing the burden of proof so that it
     women as regards access to employment, vocational training and                fell on Germany without any concrete reasons, the
     promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40).              Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to provide
                                                                                evidence of an infringement of Community law in the
                                                                                area of suckler-cow premiums.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         Removal from the Register of Case C-326/03 (1)

   (2004/C 118/70)
   By order of 25 March 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case C-326/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2004 in Case C-337/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hamann International GmbH Spedition + Logistik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Community Customs Code — Customs debt on import — Removal of goods from customs supervision)

text:
C 85/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              3.4.2004
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 12 February 2004
                                                                                of 5 February 2004
in Case C-337/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hamann International GmbH
  Spedition + Logistik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (1)                      in Case C-380/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gustav Schneider v
                                                                                Bundesminister für Justiz (1)
(Community Customs Code — Customs debt on import —
         Removal of goods from customs supervision)
                                                                             (Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and
                           (2004/C 85/07)                                    women — Promotion — Principle of effective control by the
                                                                                courts — Inadmissibility)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/08)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-337/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the proceedings pending before that court between Hamann                                      in the European Court Reports)
International GmbH Spedition + Logistik and Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Stadt, on the interpretation of Article 203(1) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
acting for the President of the Second Chamber, R. Schintgen                 In Case C-380/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                   EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
trar, has given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in which it                  Gustav Schneider and Bundesminister für Justiz, on the
has ruled:                                                                   interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
                                                                             1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treat-
                                                                             ment for men and women as regards access to employment,
Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                     vocational training and promotion, and working conditions
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to                (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
be interpreted as meaning that there is removal from customs                 of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
supervision for the purposes of that provision when, before the entry        C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May                S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down                        trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February
provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, non-             2004, in which it has ruled:
Community goods which were subject to the customs warehousing
procedure and intended for re-export from the customs territory of the
Community have been removed and transported from the customs
warehouse to the customs office at the point of exit without having          The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Verwaltungs-
been placed under the external transit procedure and the customs             gerichtshof by order of 13 September 2001 is inadmissible.
authorities have been unable, if only for a short time, to ensure
customs supervision of those goods.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
(1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.


title: Case C-310/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lunds tingsrätt — Sweden) — Svenska staten represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser v Anders Holmqvist (Approximation of laws — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC — Article 8a — Activities carried out in a number of Member States)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lunds tingsrätt — Sweden) — Svenska staten represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser v Anders Holmqvist
   (Case C-310/07) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Article 8a - Activities carried out in a number of Member States)
   (2008/C 313/12)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Lunds tingsrätt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Svenska staten represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser

      Defendant: Anders Holmqvist
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lunds Tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2003 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Wage guarantee for a worker employed in a road haulage undertaking having its head office and only establishment in a Member State and which carries out deliveries of goods between the Member State of origin and other Member States.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an undertaking established in a Member State to be regarded as having activities in the territory of another Member State, that undertaking does not need to have a branch or fixed establishment in that other State. The undertaking must, however, have a stable economic presence in the latter State, featuring human resources which enable it to perform activities there. In the case of a transport undertaking established in a Member State, the mere fact that a worker employed by it in that State delivers goods between that State and another Member State cannot demonstrate that the undertaking has a stable economic presence in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-502/07: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — IIC-Intersport International v OHIM — McKenzie (McKENZIE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark McKENZIE — Earlier Community figurative and word marks McKINLEY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — IIC-Intersport International v OHIM — McKenzie (McKENZIE)
   (Case T-502/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark McKENZIE - Earlier Community figurative and word marks McKINLEY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 194/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: IIC-Intersport International Corp. GmbH (Ostermundigen, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Steinhauser, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The McKenzie Corporation Ltd (Ponteland Village, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Alexander QC, R. Kempner and O.M. Delafaille, Solicitors)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2007 (Case R 1425/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between The McKenzie Corporation Ltd and IIC — Intersport International Corp. GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders IIC-Intersport International Corp. GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-115/10: Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — United Kingdom v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision 2010/45/EU — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Measure not open to challenge — Measure merely confirmatory — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/24

         Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-115/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2010/45/EU - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Measure not open to challenge - Measure merely confirmatory - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 211/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, acting as Agent, and by D. Wyatt QC and M. Wood, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/45/EU of 22 December 2009 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2010 L 30, p. 322) to the extent that it lists the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (under reference ES6120032) as a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to rule on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.