title: Case C-395/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Decision 2004/290/EC — Manner in which a Member State applies a derogating measure — Authorisation — Article 2, point (1) — ‘Construction work’ — Interpretation — Supplies of goods covered — Possibility for the derogating measure to be applied only in part — Restrictions)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid
   (Case C-395/11) (1)

   (Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Decision 2004/290/EC - Manner in which a Member State applies a derogating measure - Authorisation - Article 2, point (1) - ‘Construction work’ - Interpretation - Supplies of goods covered - Possibility for the derogating measure to be applied only in part - Restrictions)
   2013/C 38/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 2, point (1) of Council Decision 2004/290/EC of 30 March 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 21 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 59) — Right of the authorised Member State to apply that derogation only partially — Term ‘construction work’ contained in that provision — Whether supplies of goods are included

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point (1) of Article 2 of Council Decision 2004/290/EC of 30 March 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 21 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted to the effect that the term ‘construction work’, as used in that provision, covers the supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive, in addition to the transactions to be regarded as supplies of services, as defined in Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2004/7/EC of 20 January 2004.

               2.

               Decision 2004/290 must be interpreted to the effect that it is open to the Federal Republic of Germany to avail itself only partially of the authorisation granted by that decision, exercising it in respect of certain subcategories, such as particular types of construction work, and in respect of supplies to certain recipients. When establishing those subcategories, that Member State is required to respect the principle of fiscal neutrality and the general principles of European Union law and, in particular, the principles of proportionality and legal certainty. It is for the referring court to determine, taking into account all the relevant facts and points of law, whether that is the position in the case before it and, if appropriate, to take the measures necessary to remedy the harmful consequences brought about by the application of the provisions at issue in a manner inconsistent with the principles of proportionality or legal certainty.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-580/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 21 November 2011 — Tarragona Power S.L. v Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Spanish State, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Endesa, S.A.

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 21 November 2011 — Tarragona Power S.L. v Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Spanish State, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Endesa, S.A.
   (Case C-580/11)
   2012/C 39/17
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Tarragona Power S.L.

      Other parties: Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Spanish State, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Endesa, S.A.

      Question referred

   May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


title: Case C-27/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat lodged on 26 January 2007 — Banque Féderative du Crédit Mutuel v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat lodged on 26 January 2007 — Banque Féderative du Crédit Mutuel v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   (Case C-27/07)
   (2007/C 82/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banque Féderative du Crédit Mutuel

      Defendant: Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   Question referred
   The add-back to the taxable income of a parent company established in France of 5 % of the tax credits attributed upon the distribution of profits by a subsidiary established in another Member State of the European Union where those distributed profits have been subject in that other State to a withholding tax, has no effect on the taxation level of the parent company if the latter is able to set off all the tax credits against the tax payable. Where the parent company did not decide to redistribute those profits to its own shareholders within five years, and in consequence is no longer able to use the fiscal advantage represented by those tax credits, can the taxation — additional to corporation tax — which results from the add-back of 5 % of the tax credits to its taxable income be regarded as permitted under Article 7(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 (1), in view of the small amount of such a tax and the fact that it was established directly in conjunction with payment of tax credits, introduced in order to mitigate the economic double taxation of dividends, or must it be regarded as contrary to the objectives of Article 4 of the same Directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member states (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).


title: Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Luc Jacobs against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-33/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 131 /21
had 12 years and several days' specific professional                  Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Deborah Gabriel
experience, he should have been classed in Grade A 5 in                  against the Commission of the European Communities
accordance with Article 2, second paragraph, of the                                             ( Case T-32/97)
Commission's decision of 1 September 1983 , in the
appropriate step.                                                                                ( 97/C 131/50 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In support of his application he argues, alternatively, that
the decision was unlawful in so far as it states that
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Article 2, first paragraph, thereof applies to members of             Communities was brought before the Court of First
the temporary staff recruited under Article 2 ( a ) of the            Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
Regulations applicable to Other Servants; that it fails to            1997 by Deborah Gabriel, residing in Brussels, represented
fulfil the obligation to state reasons; that it infringes             by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations; and that the               service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Commission committed a manifest error of assessment.
                                                                      Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's request that it give
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Francisco                           consideration to the possible application of
Fernandez Ruiz against the Commission of the European                     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                           Communities
                         (Case T-31/97)                               — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
                          ( 97/C 131 /49 )                                expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                (Language of the case: French)                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                      Case T-16/97 O.
1997 by Francisco Fernandez Ruiz, residing in Waterloo
( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Luc Jacobs
— annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996                        against the Commission of the European Communities
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                               (Case T-33/97)
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     97/C 131/51 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                                  (Language of the case: French)
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           1997 by Luc Jacobs, residing in Koekelberg ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, L-1320 Lux
                                                                      embourg.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 t 1 ).                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                           rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                           consideration to the possible application of
                                                                           Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 131/22          f EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 4 . 97
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   annulment of the decision of the Commission describing
    adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                      as State aid the applicant's restructuring and ordering
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     cessation of all financial intervention on the part of the
                                                                       Belgian public authorities in favour of the public limited
                                                                       company Forges de Clabecq, as well as recovery of the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            amounts already granted.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant claims that there has been a breach of
                                                                       Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty and of the concept of aid
                                                                       contained therein inasmuch as, first, the contested decision
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 considers 'financial intervention of the Region of
Case T- 16/97 I 1 ).                                                   Wallonia ' and 'measures taken by Belgium' in respect of
                                                                       the applicant to constitute aid without taking account of
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  the exact identity of the body distributing the alleged aid,
                                                                       namely SWS, a private law company, and, second,
                                                                       inasmuch as the contested decision mistakes the nature
                                                                       and source of the advantages granted, since no State
                                                                       resources whatever are involved. The applicant submits a
                                                                       second plea in annulment alleging incorrect application of
                                                                       the 'private investor in similar circumstances' rule and
                                                                       manifest error of assessment as regards the
Action brought on 25 February 1997 by the public limited               implementation of that concept. By way of a third plea in
company Forges de Clabecq against the Commission of                    law the applicant adduces breach of fundamental
                  the European Communities                             principles, of the rules of sound administration and of the
                                                                       rights of defence .
                          ( Case T-37/97)
                           ( 97/C 131 /52 )
                                                                       In the alternative, the applicant raises an objection of
               (Language of the case: French)                          illegality against Decision 3855/91 /ECSC (' 1991 Aid
                                                                       Code') in the event that — quod non — it should be
                                                                       considered that the projected plan presented characteristics
An action against the Commission of the European                       such as to qualify it as aid . First, the applicant claims a
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      breach of Article 95 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the ECSC Treaty
Instance of the European Communities on 25 February                    inasmuch as a provision such as the aid code, adopted on
1997 by the public limited company Forges de Clabecq,                  the basis of Article 95 ( 1 ) of the ECSC Treaty, entails an
established in Clabecq ( Belgium ), represented by Alain               extensive modification of the powers of the Commission
Zenner, Dominique Jossart, Gerard Leplat and Gilbert                   by authorizing it to lay down by way of a legislative
Demez, receivers appointed by judgment of the Tribunal                 provision    the    conditions  in   which  State  aids      are
de Commerce, Nivelles, on 3 January 1997, and by Pierre               authorized, by authorizing it to examine the aid requested,
Paul van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address               if necessary by initiating an inter partes procedure to do
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Schiltz,               so, and by authorizing it to ensure the observance and the
2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .                                             monitoring of the allocation of such State aid, despite the
                                                                       fact that any change or adaptation of the powers of the
                                                                       Commission fall within the scope of Article 95 ( 2 ) and ( 3 )
                                                                       of the ECSC Treaty. It was therefore wrong not to apply
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            it. Secondly, it claims that Articles 92 and 93 of the ECSC
                                                                       Treaty were infringed inasmuch as Decision 3855/91
                                                                       ECSC involves and covers 'non-specific' aid, in particular
— annul the decision of the Commission of 18 December                  those aspects which concern research and development,
     1996 C43/96 Belgium-Forges de Clabecq,                            environmental protection and, finally, policy on aid to
                                                                       disadvantaged regions despite the fact that such matters
                                                                       go beyond the scope of the ECSC Treaty, since they are
                                                                       covered by provisions of the EC Treaty, without, however,
— make an appropriate order as to costs.                               the Code having its legal basis in the EC Treaty or its
                                                                       provisions being in compliance therewith. Finally the
                                                                       applicant alleges misuse of powers, a manifest error of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     assessment and breach of the principle of equality.
The applicant, an integrated steel undertaking that
produces liquid steel and finished flat products, seeks the


title: Case C-418/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011 — Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Stabilator sp. z o.o. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Opposition proceedings — Earlier mark STABILAT — Figurative sign ‘stabilator’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Absence of similarity of the goods and services)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/8

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011 — Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Stabilator sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-418/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Earlier mark STABILAT - Figurative sign ‘stabilator’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity of the goods and services)
   2011/C 211/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A. Zinnecker and S. Müller, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Stabilator sp. z o.o. (represented by M. Kacprzak, radca prawny)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark STABILAT in respect of goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008, rejecting its opposition against registration of the figurative Community trade mark stabilator in respect of goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42 — Incorrect assessment of the similarity between the services covered by the marks at issue — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-318/09: Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Audi and Volkswagen v OHIM (TDI)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/67

         Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Audi and Volkswagen v OHIM (TDI)
   (Case T-318/09)
   2009/C 267/121
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany) and Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by P. Kather, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 May 2009 (Case R 226/2007-1);

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TDI’ for goods in Class 12 (application No 3179058)

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the mark applied for has the requisite acquired distinctiveness;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character;

               —

               Infringement of the first clause of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the defendant failed to take up the applicants’ offers of evidence;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

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


title: Action brought on 24 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-332/97)

text:
c 331/16               ΓΕΝ                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1 . 11 . 97
Commission of the European Communities, represented                             Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,                    under the EC Treaty and those Directives;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                      2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
The Commission claims that the Court should :                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within                out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
      the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and                  transposition expired on 1 July 1995 .
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC
      of 29 June 1995 ( l ) amending Council Directive 86/              H OJ L 182, 2 . 8 . 1995 , p. 14 .
      662/EEC       on    the     limitation of   noise   emitted       ( 2 ) OJ L 182, 2 . 8 . 1995, p. 17.
      by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators,                ( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
      dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders (2 ), the Kingdom
      of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that Directive and the EC Treaty;
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                        Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-332/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                                                ( 97/C 331/32 )
out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
transposition expired on 31 December 1995 .
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice on 24 September 1997 by the
(') OJ L 168 , 18 . 7. 1995 , p. 14 .                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
(2 ) OJ L 384, 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
(3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        by H. van Vliet, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 23 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal                         1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within
                        Republic of Germany                                     the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and
                            Case C-331/97)                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on
                            ( 97/C 331/31 )                                     the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or
                                                                                killing ( l ), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under the Treaty;
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 23 September 1997                2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
                                                                        out in Case C-320/97 (2 ); the period prescribed in the
                                                                        Directive expired on 1 January 1995 .
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                        (') OJ L 340 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p. 21 .
                                                                         ( z ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal .
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
      necessary to comply with Directives 95/40/EC (*) and
      95/4 1/EC (2) within the period prescribed, the Federal


title: Case C-308/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2009 — B.A.M. Vermeer Contracting Sp. z o.o.; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2009 — B.A.M. Vermeer Contracting Sp. z o.o.; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
   (Case C-308/09)
   2009/C 267/63
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: B.A.M. Vermeer Contracting Sp. z. o.o.

      Other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 49 EC and 50 EC be interpreted as precluding a national arrangement, as set out in Article 2 of the Netherlands Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), read in conjunction with Article 1e(1)(c) of the Decree implementing the Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Besluit uitvoering Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), under which a work permit is required for the hiring-out of workers as referred to in Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC? (1)

               2.

               On the basis of what criteria should it be determined whether workers have been hired out within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC?

      (1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).


title: Case C-54/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Civil-law notaries — Nationality condition — Article 45 EC — Connection with the exercise of official authority — Directives 89/48/EEC and 2005/36/EC)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-54/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Civil-law notaries - Nationality condition - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directives 89/48/EEC and 2005/36/EC)
   2011/C 204/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and G. Braun, Agents)

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

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, J. Kemper, U. Karpenstein and J. Möller, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Ivanov and E. Petranova, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér), Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, G. Holley and M. Aufner, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, C. Herma and D. Lutostańska, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 and 45 EC — Failure to transpose, as regards the profession of notary, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — National legislation making the exercise of the profession of notary subject to the condition of nationality — Concept of ‘activity connected with the exercise of official authority’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

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

               2.

               Dismisses the action as the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-400/07: Action brought on 5 November 2007 — GretagMacbeth v OHIM (Coloured squares)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/43

         Action brought on 5 November 2007 — GretagMacbeth v OHIM (Coloured squares)
   (Case T-400/07)
   (2007/C 315/82)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: GretagMacbeth LLC (New Windsor, United States of America) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 30 August 2007 in Case R 30/2007-4 concerning Community trade mark application No 4 634 572;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The colour mark ‘coloured squares’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 (application No 4 634 572).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the mark applied for was deemed incorrectly not to have any distinctive character in respect of the goods and services covered.

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


title: Case T-75/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ROD Leichtmetallräder v OHIM — Rodi TR (ROD)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/39

         Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ROD Leichtmetallräder v OHIM — Rodi TR (ROD)
   (Case T-75/15)
   (2015/C 118/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ROD Leichtmetallräder GmbH (Weiden in der Oberpfalz, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand and J. Biener, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rodi TR, SL (Lleida, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘ROD’ — Community trade mark No 5 6 94  989

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2014 in Case R 281/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Annul the decision of OHIM’s Cancellation Division of 22 November 2013;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court as well as the costs of the proceedings before OHMI’s Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 65(2) in connection with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of an essential procedural requirement — infringement of Rules 39(3) and 37(b)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Action brought on 2 June 1997 by Farine Laziali SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-169/97)

text:
No C 228/24           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 7. 97
unsupported by any statement of reasons and that it was              The contested decisions were therefore arbitrary and
adopted in breach of the second paragraph of Article 25              clearly went beyond the limits of the Council's discretion .
of the Staff Regulations .
Action brought on 30 May 1997 by Daniel Varas Carrion                Action brought on 2 June 1997 by Farine Laziali SpA
          against the Council of the European Union                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-168/97 )                                                  ( Case T-169/97)
                          ( 97/C 228/57)                                                      97/C 228/58 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 May 1997 by Daniel Varas Carrion,                  An action against the Commission of the European
residing in Barcelona ( Spain ), represented by Marianne             Communities was brought before the Court of First
Droinet, of the Brussels Bar.                                        Instance of the European Communities on 2 June 1997 by
                                                                     Farine Laziali SpA, represented by Wilma Viscardini
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Dona, Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua
                                                                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Matthias Hardt.
— annul the Council 's decision of 19 December 1996
     ( received on 31 December 1996 ), refusing to admit the
     applicant to the test of Competition ' Consejo/C/374'
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
     ( Spanish-language typist) on the ground that the
     application documents supplied did not demonstrate a
     sufficient level of knowledge of a second Community
     language,                                                       — annul the Commission's decision by which the planned
                                                                         investment for rationalizing plant used in the
                                                                         production of dried medicinal herbs, called 'Project
— annul the Council 's decision of 18 March               1997
                                                                         No 013 ', included in the operational programme
     ( received on 24 March 1997), which confirmed the                   92.CT.IT.05 submitted to the Regione Lazio, was
     decision of 19 December 1996, notwithstanding the                   excluded from the financing provided for by
     applicant's complaint of 14 January 1997,                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 (Articles 173 and 174 of
                                                                         the EC Treaty),
— annul the test which took place on 26 April 1997 and
     therefore order all the candidates to be called again,
     including the applicant,                                        — order the Commission to pay to the applicant
                                                                         compensation for damage under Article 178 and the
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                    second subparagraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty
                                                                         in the amount to be quantified by the Court during
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      the proceedings,
The Council refused to admit the applicant to the first test         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
of the Open Competition for Spanish-language typists
( Consejo/C/374 ), on the ground that his application
documents did not show that he had sufficient knowledge
of French .
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant maintains that no reasons are stated for the           The applicant, an Italian company based in Ponzano
first contested decision, and that it therefore infringes            Romano and Sant'Oreste, which carries on the activities
Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                        of growing, processing   and marketing fodder plants and of
                                                                     drying the medicinal     herbs obtained when it cuts the
Concerning the second contested decision, the applicant              plants, challenges the   defendant's decision excluding the
maintains that the Secretariat General of the Council                planned investment in    rationalization of plant used in the
wrongly added other conditions to those laid down in the             production of dried medicinal herbs, submitted to the
competition notice . The latter stated merely that                   Regione Lazio, from the financing provided for by
knowledge of a second Community language had to be                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 ( ] ). That contribution was
sufficient. There was no provision that certificates                 intended to be used to carry out a programme of
demonstrating that knowledge had to be enclosed with the             investments in the construction of a new storage
application documents .                                              warehouse and in various infrastructure works .
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 7. 97                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/25
The selection criteria laid down in Regulation (EEC )                        Action brought on 6 June 1997 by Jean-Claude Baiwir
No 866/90, by means of Decision 90/342/EEC ( 2), exclude                        against the Commission of the European Communities
EAGGF financing except for investments carried out 'in                                                 ( Case T-l 74/97)
units of small size '. The contested decision excluded the
grant of aid on the ground that the applicant undertaking                                                ( 97/C 228/59 )
did not fall into that category since its annual production
level exceeded 20 000 tonnes .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
First of all, the applicant alleges infringement of                          An action against the Commission of the European
Article 8 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 and breach                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
of the principle of legal certainty. In its opinion,                         Instance of the European Communities on 6 June 1997 by
when restricting financing for projects submitted by                         Jean-Claude Baiwir, resident in Court St Etienne, Belgium,
undertakings which were 'units of small size', the                           represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Commission failed to specify what was to be understood                       address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
by that term. It was, on the contrary, legitimate to                         Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
consider, as did both the applicant and the national
authority, that undertakings should be classified as being
'of small size' on the basis of the usual criteria relating to               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the number of employees and turnover. If the defendant
wishes to adopt criteria for the classification of small
undertakings other than the usual ones, by concentrating                     — annul the Commission decision of 31 July 1996
on the volume of production, it ought to have followed                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
the procedure provided for in Article 29 of Regulation                            consideration to the possible application of
( EEC ) No 4253/88 (3 ), as required by Article 8 ( 3 ) of                        Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 . Moreover, those criteria
ought to have been brought in advance to the attention
                                                                             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
not only of the Member States but also of interested
parties, by means of publication in the Official Journal of
the European Communities. On this point, the applicant                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
refers to paragraph 37 et seq. of the judgment of the
Court of First Instance in Case T-478/93 Wafer Zoo v.
Commission (4 ) [ 1995] ECR 11-1482 concerning a similar                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
dispute.                                                                     relied on in Case T-l 6/97 I 1 ).
                                                                             (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Second, the applicant points out the contradictions in the
reasons stated for the contested decision. Thus, on the one
hand, the Commission asserts that the applicant's project
was rejected because it was submitted by an undertaking
whose production exceeded 20 000 tonnes. On the other
hand, the same communication states that an undertaking
with a production volume within that limit cannot be                         Action brought on 11 June 1997 by the Netherlands
accepted because 'with regard to dried medicinal herbs, in                        Antilles against the Council of the European Union
view of existing overcapacity and the difficulties on the                                              ( Case T-l 79/97)
market, it will not be possible to finance any project in the
dried-fodder sector'.                                                                                ( 97/C 228/60 )
f 1 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 of 20 March 1990 on                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
      improving the processing and marketing conditions for
      agricultural products ( OJ No L 91 , 6 . 4 . 1990 , p. 1 ).
(2 ) Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
      selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and           Communities on 11 June 1997 by the Netherlands
      forestry products ( OJ No L 163 , 29 . 6 . 1990 , p. 71 ).             Antilles, represented by R V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom,
( 3 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                             of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
      different Structural Funds between themselves and with the             Rue Goethe .
      operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments ( OJ No L 374, 31 . 12 . 1988 ,
      p. 1 .                                                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
(4 ) Case T-478/93 Wafer Zoo v. Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-1482 .
                                                                             — annul Council Regulation No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997
                                                                                introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports


title: Case C-467/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 31 October 2008 — Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Padawan, S.L. and Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), intervener

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 31 October 2008 — Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Padawan, S.L. and Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), intervener
   (Case C-467/08)
   (2009/C 19/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE)

      Defendant: Padawan, S.L.

      Other party: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the concept of ‘fair compensation’ in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 (1) entail harmonisation, irrespective of the Member States' right to choose the system of collection which they deem appropriate for the purposes of giving effect to the right to fair compensation of intellectual property rightholders affected by the adoption of the private copying exception or limitation?

               2.

               Regardless of the system used by each Member State to calculate fair compensation, must that system ensure a fair balance between the persons affected, the intellectual property rightholders affected by the private copying exception, to whom the compensation is owed, on the one hand, and the persons directly or indirectly liable to pay the compensation, on the other, and is that balance determined by the reason for the fair compensation, which is to mitigate the harm arising from the private copying exception.?

               3.

               Where a Member State opts for a system of charging or levying in respect of digital reproduction equipment, devices and media, in accordance with the aim pursued by Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 and the context of that provision, must that charge (the fair compensation for private copying) necessarily be linked to the presumed use of those equipment and media for making reproductions covered by the private copying exception, with the result that the application of the charge would be justified where it may be presumed that the digital reproduction equipment, devices and media are to be used for private copying, but not otherwise?

               4.

               If a Member State adopts a private copying ‘levy’ system, is the indiscriminate application of that ‘levy’ to undertakings and professional persons who clearly purchase digital reproduction devices and media for purposes other than private copying compatible with the concept of ‘fair compensation’?

               5.

               Might the system adopted by the Spanish State of applying the private copying levy indiscriminately to all digital reproduction equipment, devices and media infringe Directive 2001/29, in so far as there is insufficient correlation between the fair compensation and the limitation of the private copying right justifying it, because to a large extent it is applied to different situations in which the limitation of rights justifying the compensation does not exist?

      (1)  Corrigendum to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten by order of that court of 29 April 1998 in the case of X AB and Y AB against Riksskatteverket (Case C-200/98)

text:
C 258/20              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
     legally permissible, that is to say, adequate, not              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
     vitiated by any error of law or of fact and not                 by order of that court of 29 April 1998 in the case of X
     contradictory;                                                             AB and Y AB against Riksskatteverket
                                                                                (Case C-200/98)
Ð infringement of the Staff Regulations of officials of the
     European Communities, in particular Articles 12, 13,                                    (98/C 258/33)
     14 and 17, the first and second paragraphs of
     Article 21, Article 25, the second paragraph of
     Article 87 and the fifth paragraph of Article 88 thereof
     and Annex IX thereto, in particular Articles 1, 2 and           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     3, the second paragraph of Article 7 and Article 11 of          European Communities by order of 29 April 1998,
     that annex;                                                     received at the Court Registry on 22 May 1998, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the case of X AB and Y AB against
Ð breach of the general principles applicable under                  Riksskatteverket on the following question:
     Community law, in particular the principle of the
     rights of the defence, the audi alteram partem rule, the
     principle that the court seised of the proceedings must
     be impartial (and Article 6 of the Convention on                Under Paragraph 2(3) of Law 1947:576 on State Income
     Human Rights), the principles of legal certainty, good          Tax, an intra-group transfer is treated, under certain
     faith and the protection of legitimate expectations, the        conditions, as having fiscal effect if it is made by a
     duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of            Swedish limited liability company to another Swedish
     officials and the principle that all administrative acts        limited liability company which is wholly owned either by
     must be based on legally permissible grounds, that is           the first-named company directly or by that company
     to say, grounds which are pertinent and not vitiated by         together with a wholly-owned Swedish subsidiary or
     any error of law or of fact.                                    subsidiaries. The fiscal result is the same if one, or more,
                                                                     of the wholly-owned subsidiaries is foreign provided it is
                                                                     established, or they are established, in one and the same
The contested judgment applies a restrictive interpretation          Member State and Sweden has concluded with that State a
to the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff                    double-taxation      agreement       containing    a    non-
Regulations of officials; the object of that provision is to         discrimination clause. Against that background, is it
ensure that the administrative authority charged with                compatible with existing Community law, in particular
investigating the matter and thereafter, as the case may be,         Article 52 in combination with Article 58 and Article 73b
with imposing a disciplinary measure is fully informed of            and d of the Treaty of Rome, to apply a set of rules under
the facts alleged against the official concerned which form          which an intra-group transfer is not treated as having the
the subject-matter of the criminal prosecution brought               same fiscal effect when the Swedish parent company
against him.                                                         instead owns the recipient company together with two or
                                                                     more wholly-owned foreign subsidiaries which are
The appellant also complains that the Court of First                 established in different Member States with which Sweden
Instance based its contested judgment on incorrect                   has concluded a double-taxation agreement containing a
considerations and reasons which were contrary to the                non-discrimination clause?
items contained in the case-file. The Court of First
Instance failed in the contested judgment to arrive at the
proper factual or legal conclusions which it should have
drawn from the information in the file before it.
The contested judgment should also be annulled on the
ground that it misapplies the audi alteram partem rule, the
principle of equality of arms and the obligation to provide          Action brought on 25 May 1998 by the Commission of
a statement of pertinent reasons. Thus it wrongly                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
concludes that the principle of equality of arms was                                            Belgium
respected on the ground that the appellant had access to                                  (Case C-201/98)
the documents which were available to the Disciplinary
Board for the purposes of delivering its opinion, on which                                   (98/C 258/34)
the appointing authority relied in adopting the contested
decision'. The Court of First Instance also wrongly based
on the same grounds its conclusion that the appellant was
given the opportunity of acquainting himself with all the
                                                                     An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
facts on which the decision was based, in sufficient time
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
to enable him to submit his observations'.
                                                                     on 25 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
(1) Judgment of 19 March 1998 in Case T-74/96 (OJ C 137 of           Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting
    2.5.1998, p. 13).                                                as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                     Kirchberg.


title: Case T-286/09: Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Intel v Commission

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/41

         Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Intel v Commission
   (Case T-286/09)
   2009/C 220/86
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intel Corp. (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: N. Green, I. Forrester, QC, M. Hoskins, K. Bacon, S. Singla, Barristers, A. Parr and R. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in whole or in part Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel;

               —

               Alternatively, annul or reduce substantially the level of the fine imposed;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay Intel’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application, the applicant seeks annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel finding that it committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of EEA Agreement from October 2002 until December 2007 by implementing a strategy aimed at foreclosing competitors form the market of x86 central processing units (‘CPUs’). Further, the applicant seeks the annulment or the reduction of the fine imposed on it.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, it contends that the Commission errs in law by:

               (a)

               finding that the conditional discounts granted by Intel to its customers were abusive per se by virtue of them being conditional without establishing that they had an actual capability to foreclose competition;

               (b)

               relying on a form of exclusionary abuse, termed ‘naked restrictions’, and failing to conduct any analysis of foreclosure (even a capability or likelihood to foreclose) in respect thereof;

               (c)

               failing to analyse whether Intel’s rebate arrangements with its customers were implemented in the territory of the European Community and/or had immediate, substantial, direct and foreseeable effects within the European Community.

         Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission fails to meet the required standard of proof in its analysis of the evidence. Thus, the Commission fails to prove that Intel’s rebate arrangements were conditional upon its customers purchasing all or almost all of their x86 CPU requirements from Intel. In addition, the Commission uses an ‘as efficient competitor’ (‘AEC’) test to determine whether Intel’s rebates were capable of restricting competition but it commits numerous errors in the analysis and assessment of the evidence relating to the application of that test. The Commission also fails to address other categories of evidence relevant to the effects of Intel’s discounts. In particular, the Commission fails:

               (a)

               to address the evidence which shows that during the period of the alleged infringement, one of Intel’s competitors substantially increased its market share and its profitability but that its lack of success in certain market segments and/or with certain original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’) was the result of its own shortcomings;

               (b)

               to establish a causal link between what it finds to be conditional discounts and the decisions of Intel’s customers not to purchase from that competitor;

               (c)

               to analyse the evidence of the impact of Intel’s discounts upon consumers.

         Thirdly, the applicant argues that the Commission fails to prove that Intel engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose the competitors. Such a finding is not supported by the evidence and is impossible to reconcile with the fragmented nature of the Commission’s allegations (in relation to both products covered and time period) in respect of each Intel customer.
   The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence. In particular, the Commission failed:

               (a)

               to grant Intel an oral hearing in relation to the Supplementary Statement of Objections and Letter of Facts, even though they raised entirely new allegations and referred to new evidence which feature prominently in the contested decision;

               (b)

               to procure certain internal documents from the competitor for the case file, when requested to do so by the applicant notwithstanding that, in the applicant’s opinion, the documents:

                           (i)

                           were directly relevant to the Commission’s allegations against Intel,

                           (ii)

                           were potentially exculpatory of Intel and

                           (iii)

                           had been identified by Intel with precision;

               (c)

               to make a proper note of its meeting with a key witness from one of Intel’s customers, who was highly likely to have given exculpatory evidence.

         Pursuant to Article 229 EC, the applicant also challenges the level of the fine imposed upon it on three main grounds.
   First, it claims that the fine of EUR 1 060 000 000 (the largest ever fine imposed upon a single firm by the Commission) is manifestly disproportionate given that the Commission fails to establish any consumer harm or foreclosure of the comeptitors.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that it did not intentionally or negligently infringe Article 82 EC: the Commission’s AEC analysis is based on information that it could not know at the time it was granting discounts to its customers.
   Thirdly, the applicant contends that in setting the fine the Commission fails to apply its 2006 fining guidelines correctly, and takes into account irrelevant or inappropriate considerations.


title: Case T-600/13: Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM (FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/13

         Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM (FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES)
   (Case T-600/13)
   2014/C 31/23
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 11 September 2013 and, consequently, grant Community figurative mark No 11 094 381 for all of the goods in respect of which it is requested in Class 30;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 094 381

      Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 with regard to the principle of equal treatment and Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


title: Action brought on 27 February 1997 by Pearle BV, Hans Prijsoptiek Franchise BV, Van der Wiel BV, Prins Brillen BV, Brilservice BV and Optical Retail Group BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-40/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 131 /23
Action brought on 27 February 1997 by T. Port GmbH &c                 schaft und Ernahrung, for the short-term issue to it, for
         Co. against the Commission of the European                   the purpose of securing its economic survival which it
                           Communities                                considered to be threatened by events amounting to force
                         ( Case T-39/97)                              majeure, of import licences in addition to the import
                                                                      licences issued by the national authorities or to be issued
                          ( 97/C 131/53 )                             by them for the years 1997 to 1999 . It sought those
                                                                      further import licences as a transitional measure under
                                                                      Article 30 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 to compensate
                (Language of the case: German)                        for hardship which, without fault on its part, has befallen
                                                                      it as a result of the provision relating to reference periods
                                                                      in Article 19 ( 2 ) of that regulation.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 27 February
1997 by T. Port GmbH & Co ., Hamburg, represented by                  The applicant now seeks a declaration that the
Gerd Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for                Commission has infringed the abovementioned provisions
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden,                  of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 by failing to grant its
34b Rue Philippe II.                                                  applications and claims in the result that its fundamental
                                                                      rights protected by Community law, namely the right to
                                                                      property and the freedom to exercise a profession, have
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          been infringed by that Regulation and that the
                                                                      Commission had been obliged to adopt transitional
                                                                      measures to prevent those fundamental rights from being
— declare that the Commission has breached its duty                   violated .
     under Article 30 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 by
     failing to grant the application made by the applicant
     on 19 December 19 96 for the purpose of securing its
     economic survival as an importer of bananas, in which
     it sought, in addition to the licences issued by the
     national authorities or to be issued by them for 1997,
     1998 and 1999, the issue, for the short term:                    Action brought on 27 February 1997 by Pearle BV, Hans
                                                                      Prijsoptiek Franchise BV, Van der Wiel BV, Prins Brillen
                                                                      BV, Brilservice BV and Optical Retail Group BV against
     in 1997, of import licences for an operator in
                                                                              the Commission of the European Communities
     category A in respect of 100 308 227 kg;
                                                                                ( Case T-40/97)
     in 1988 , of like import licences in respect of                                              ( 97/C 131/54 )
     102 911 007 kg;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
     in 1999, of like import licences in respect of
     103 994 145 kg; and
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
     in 2000, of like import licences in respect of                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
     107 628 379 kg,                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 27 February
                                                                       1997 by Pearle BV, of Soesterberg (Netherlands), Hans
                                                                       Prijsoptiek Franchise BV, of Rotterdam (Netherlands ), Van
     as    a  transitional    measure   under   Article  30   of       der Wiel BV, of Leiden (Netherlands ), Prins Brillen BV, of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 to compensate for                    Amsterdam (Netherlands ), Brilservice BV, of Amsterdam
     hardship which, without fault on its part, has befallen           ( Netherlands ), and Optical Retail Group BV, of Eindhoven
     it as a result of the provision relating to reference             (Netherlands ), represented by S. N. Vlaar, of the
                                                                       Amsterdam Bar.
     periods in Article 19 ( 2 ) of that Regulation;
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission, contained in a
                                                                            letter of 31 December 1996, refusing to act on their
 The applicant, a small undertaking which trades in                        complaint of 29 December 1995 ,
 bananas, formally applied to the European Commission
 by letter of 16 December 1996, following the judgment of
 the Court of Justice of 26 November 1996 in Case C-68/                — order the Commission to act on the applicants'
 95 T. Port GmbH & Co . v. Bundesanstalt fur Landwirt                      complaint.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 131 /24             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 4 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                                                                                and Others (M
The applicants are all engaged in business as opticians                                              ( 97/C 131/56 )
and are, as required by law, members of the
Hoofdbedrijfsschap Ambachten (Trades and Crafts                           By order of 4 February 1997, the President of the First
Council ). That body, a public corporation, has imposed a                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
levy on the applicants pursuant to rules laid down in that                Communities has ordered the removal of Case T-20/95
regard, the proceeds from which are used for collective                   from the list of cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and
advertising on behalf of the opticians' trade. In their                   Others : Hilde Diekmeier and Others v. Council of the
complaint to the Commission, the applicants maintain                      European Union and Commission of the European
that those ( non-notified ) rules are contrary to Article 92 of           Communities .
the EC Treaty.
                                                                          H OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
They assert, in opposition to the contested decision, not
only that it infringes procedural requirements but also that
it is not open to the Commission to exempt aid measures
from the obligation to give prior notification, let alone to
do so with retroactive force ('). In addition, the
Commission has failed to take action in respect of an                            Removal from the register of Case T-199/95 (')
infringement of Article 54 ( 3 ) (h ) of the EC Treaty.                                              ( 97/C 131/57)
(') The provision in issue is the de minimis rule contained in the        By order of 22 January 1997 the President of the Third
    Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium               Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    sized enterprises ( SMEs ) ( OJ No C 213 , 19 . 8 . 1992 , p. 2 ).
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case T-199/95 : Nouveau
                                                                          Garage SA and Others v. Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-77/93
                           and Others (')
                           ( 97/C 131/55 )
By order of 4 February 1997, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                            Removal from the register of Case T-137/96 (')
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                                                 ( 97/C 131/58 )
removal of Case T-77/93 from the list of Joined Cases
T-77/93 and Others : Werner Hiilseberg and Others v.                      By order of 23 January 1997 the President of the Fifth
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-137/96 : Valio Oy v. Commission of the European
(') OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7. 1990.                                           Communities .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case T-537/14: Action brought on 11 July 2014  — Laboratoire Nuxe v OHIM — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/22

         Action brought on 11 July 2014 — Laboratoire Nuxe v OHIM — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX)
   (Case T-537/14)
   2014/C 329/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NYX, Los Angeles Inc. (California, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2014 in Case R 1575/2013-5;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: NYX, Los Angeles Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark including the word element ‘NYX’ for goods in Class 3 — international registration designating the European Union No 1 1 0 52  316

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘NUXE’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and the opposition rejected

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


title: Case C-72/13: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Disposal by a municipality of parts of its assets)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/3

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-72/13) (1)

   ((VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Disposal by a municipality of parts of its assets))
   2014/C 184/04
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gmina Wrocław

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxation of the transactions of a municipality — Sale of property acquired by operation of law, by inheritance or by donation — Transfer of such property to companies

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding transactions such as those envisaged by the gmina Wrocław (municipality of Wrocław) from being subject to value added tax, in so far as the referring court states that those transactions constitute an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive and such transactions are not carried out by that municipality as a public authority within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of that directive. However, if those transactions were to be considered to be carried out by that municipality acting as a public authority, the provisions of Directive 2006/112 would not prohibit their taxation to the extent that the referring court should find that their exemption would be capable of giving rise to significant distortions of competition within the meaning of Article 13(2) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.05.2013.


title: Case T-87/09: Action brought on 25 February 2009 — Gråhundbus v/Jørgen Andersen v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/38

         Action brought on 25 February 2009 — Gråhundbus v/Jørgen Andersen v Commission
   (Case T-87/09)
   2009/C 113/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gråhundbus v/Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, J. Rivas de Andrés, J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the definitive position of the Commission concerning the Copenhagen-Ystad route contained in paragraphes 75, 76 and 145 of the Decision of the Commission dated 10 September 2008 with regard to State Aid case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) — Danske Statsbaner;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the Commission dated 10 September 2008 with regard to State Aid case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) — Danske Statsbaner;

               —

               order that the Commission pay the cost incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision of 10 September 2008 to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC in respect of the State aid allegedly granted by Denmark to Danske Statsbaner (‘DSB’) for rail passenger transport between Copenhagen and Ystad through the public service contracts between Danish Ministry of Transport and the public enterprise DSB (Case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) — Danske Statsbaner). Interested parties were invited to submit their comments (1).
   The applicant operates bus passenger transport on the route Copenhagen-Ystad.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, it claims that the Commission erred in law when deciding that the Danish government did not incur in a manifest error of appreciation when considering that the Copenhagen-Ystad route constituted a public service or service of general economic interest.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law when it did not raise doubts with regard to the qualification of the Copenhagen-Ystad route as public service obligation or a service of general economic interest or a public service in view of the information in its possession. It argues that the Commission should not have accepted the arguments submitted by the Danish government without further debate or examination.
   Third, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning to its decision in violation of its obligation under Article 253 EC as the only reasoning provided in the decision consists in repeating the arguments of the Danish government.

      (1)  OJ 2008 C 309, p. 14


title: Case T-73/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Alejandro Martín Magone against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/36

         Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Alejandro Martín Magone against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-73/05)
   (2005/C 106/73)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance on 14 February 2005 by Alejandro Martín Magone, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the career development report drawn up in respect of the applicant's performance (ref. 2700, ECHO) between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, including the appeal procedures and other decisions relating thereto;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 28 October 2004, received on 12 November 2004, rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials on 26 July 2004;

               —

               hold that the applicant has been the victim of mental and professional harassment;

               —

               award the applicant compensation for material and non-material damage assessed on an ex aequo et bono basis as EUR 39 169,67, or such greater sum as may be awarded in the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first, a manifest error of assessment, defective procedure and abuse of power, in that the very negative and damaging marks awarded to him were based on matters that did not concern him during the period concerned.
   Next, the applicant alleges that no reasons were given for the contested measure and claims that for years he was subjected to mental harassment by his superiors. According to the applicant, that was apparent from the remarks contained in the contested report.
   Finally, the applicant claims that his special situation exposed him to serious psychological problems, a fact which was not taken into account by the defendant when the duties assigned to him were changed. Therefore, the defendant failed in its duty of care and infringed the principle of sound administration.


title: Case C-268/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 16 May 2013 — Elena Petru v Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu and Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 16 May 2013 — Elena Petru v Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu and Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate
   (Case C-268/13)
   2013/C 207/50
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elena Petru

      Defendants: Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

      Question referred

   In the light of the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (1) is the requirement that the person concerned be unable to obtain treatment in the country of residence to be construed as categorical or as reasonable; that is to say, where, although the required surgery could, in technical terms, be carried out in good time in the country of residence — in that the necessary specialists are present there and have the same level of specialist skills as those abroad — does the lack of medicines and basic medical consumables mean that such a situation can, for the purposes of that provision, be equated with a situation in which the necessary medical treatment cannot be provided?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2, English special edition: Series I Volume 1971(II) P. 416 — 463).


title: Case T-682/16: Action brought on 23 September 2016 — France v Commission

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/24

      Action brought on 23 September 2016 — France v Commission
      (Case T-682/16)
      (2016/C 441/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4287 final of 12 July 2016, notified on 13 July 2016, suspending monthly payments to France under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF);

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549). This plea has two limbs.

                              —

                              First limb: the French authorities implemented in full the action plan including clear progress indicators established following consultation with the Commission to which the contested decision refers.

                              —

                              Second limb: the contested decision is based on factors which were not envisaged in the action plan.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-163/10: Order of the General Court of 20 April 2012 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/19

         Order of the General Court of 20 April 2012 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)
   (Case T-163/10) (1)

   2012/C 184/37
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


               18.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/14

         Action brought on 17 October 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-20/14)
   (2014/C 455/09)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 October 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make, as such and within the time prescribed, part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 19 April 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 February 2014 regarding that State’s failure to make, as such, part of its national legal order Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents, as referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Regulation as such part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed.