# Official Journal C 331/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 331 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4930 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 331

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4930 December 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Justice |
| | COURT OF JUSTICE |
| 2006/C 331/01 | Case C-380/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Approximation of laws — Directive 2003/33/EC — Advertising and sponsorship in respect of tobacco products — Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 — Choice of legal basis — Articles 95 EC and 152 EC — Principle of proportionality) | 1 |
| 2006/C 331/02 | Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (State aid — Aid schemes — Incompatibility with the common market — Time-limit for execution of the Commission's decisions — Abolition of aid schemes — Cancellation of outstanding aid — Recovery of aid made available — Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision) | 1 |
| 2006/C 331/03 | Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 December 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Torino and the Tribunale di Roma — Italy) — Federico Cipolla v Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese, C-94/04) and Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte v Roberto Meloni (C-202/04) (Community competition rules — National rules concerning lawyers' fees — Setting of professional scales of charges — Freedom to provide services) | 2 |
| 2006/C 331/04 | Case C-306/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA (Copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3 — Concept of communication to the public — Works communicated by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms) | 3 |
| 2006/C 331/05 | Case C-374/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Tax credit — Separate treatment of resident and non-resident shareholders — Bilateral double taxation conventions) | 3 |
| 2006/C 331/06 | Case C-413/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities (Directive 2003/54/EC — Common rules for the internal market in electricity — Directive 2004/85/EC — Temporary derogations in favour of Estonia — Legal basis) | 4 |
| 2006/C 331/07 | Case C-414/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 — Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 — Temporary derogations in favour of Slovenia — Legal basis) | 4 |
| 2006/C 331/08 | Case C-446/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Directive 90/435/EEC — Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax — Exemption — Dividends received from companies resident in another Member State or a non member country — Tax credit — Advance corporation tax — Equal treatment — Claim for repayment or claim for damages) | 5 |
| 2006/C 331/09 | Case C-486/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Waste recovery — Installation for the production of electricity by the incineration of combustible materials derived from waste and biomass in Massafra (Taranto) — Directives 75/442/EEC and 85/337/EEC) | 6 |
| 2006/C 331/10 | Case C-5/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.F. Joustra (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Wine — Articles 7 to 10 — Determination of the Member State in which duties are chargeable — Acquisition by a private individual for his own use and that of other private individuals — Transport to another Member State by a transport undertaking — Arrangements applicable in the Member State of destination) | 7 |
| 2006/C 331/11 | Case C-32/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Failure to notify implementing measures — Obligation to adopt framework legislation in national law — None — Incomplete implementation of or failure to implement Articles 2, 7(2) and 14) | 7 |
| 2006/C 331/12 | Case C-97/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Mohamed Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement — Tunisian worker with permission to remain in a Member State and to work there — Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions, remuneration and dismissal — Curtailment of the period of validity of the residence permit) | 8 |
| 2006/C 331/13 | Case C-161/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system applicable to the common fisheries policy — Data concerning the species and quantities landed of fish — Failure to notify) | 8 |
| 2006/C 331/14 | Case C-170/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Denkavit Internationaal BV, Denkavit France SARL v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Exemption for dividends paid to resident companies — Withholding tax levied on dividends paid to non-resident companies — Double taxation convention — Possibility of setting off the amount withheld against tax due in another Member State) | 9 |
| 2006/C 331/15 | Case C-217/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Española de Petróleos SA (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and now Article 81 EC) — Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Exclusive fuel purchasing agreements designated sales guarantee commission arrangements and agency contracts between service-station operators and oil companies) | 9 |
| 2006/C 331/16 | Case C-238/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Asnef-Equifax, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc) (Competition — Article 81 EC — System for the exchange between financial institutions of information on customer solvency — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Effect on trade between Member States — Restriction of competition — Benefit for consumers) | 10 |
| 2006/C 331/17 | Case C-240/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Eurodental Sàrl (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) — Right to deduct — Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses — Intra-Community transactions relating to transactions which are exempt within the Member State — Effect of the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 28(3)(a) in conjunction with point 2 of annex E — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Partial harmonisation of VAT) | 11 |
| 2006/C 331/18 | Case C-257/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Obligation of establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (Kesselprüfstelle)) | 11 |
| 2006/C 331/19 | Case C-283/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS) (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement — Article 34(2) — Judgment given in default of appearance — Ground for refusal — Meaning of the requirement that it must be possible for a defendant in default of appearance to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment — Failure to serve the judgment) | 12 |
| 2006/C 331/20 | Case C-293/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Urban waste-water treatment — Province of Varese) | 12 |
| 2006/C 331/21 | Case C-300/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (Directive 91/628/EEC — Protection of animals during transport — Watering and feeding intervals, journey times and resting periods — Definition of travel (Transportdauer) — Account to be taken of the time taken to load and unload the animals) | 13 |
| 2006/C 331/22 | Case C-306/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Compaq Computer International Corporation v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem (Customs value — Laptop computers equipped with operating systems software) | 13 |
| 2006/C 331/23 | Case C-315/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)) — Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR) (Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer — Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 12 — Compulsory statement of the alcoholic strength by volume for certain alcoholic beverages — Alcoholic beverage produced in a Member State other than that in which the distributor is established — Amaro alle erbe — Actual alcoholic strength by volume lower than that appearing on the label — Overstepping of the tolerance — Administrative fine — Liability of the distributor) | 14 |
| 2006/C 331/24 | Case C-316/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell (Community trade mark — Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Infringement or threatened infringement — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts — Definition of special reasons for not issuing such a prohibition — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibition is complied with — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringement coupled with penalties) | 14 |
| 2006/C 331/25 | Case C-357/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) | 15 |
| 2006/C 331/26 | Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — A. Brünsteiner GmbH (C-376/05), Autohaus Hilgert GmbH (C-377/05) v Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) (Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 — Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Reorganisation of the network — Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 — Article 4(1) — Hardcore restrictions — Consequences) | 16 |
| 2006/C 331/27 | Case C-390/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — substances that deplete the ozone layer) | 16 |
| 2006/C 331/28 | Case C-401/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(e) — Scope of the exemption — Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses by an intermediary who does not have the status of dentist or dental technician — Subcontracting to a dental technician) | 17 |
| 2006/C 331/29 | Case C-452/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution and nuisance — Urban waste-water treatment) | 17 |
| 2006/C 331/30 | Case C-13/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(a) — Insurance transactions — Body providing road assistance services) | 18 |
| 2006/C 331/31 | Case C-48/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/90/EC — Facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed) | 18 |
| 2006/C 331/32 | Case C-54/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed) | 19 |
| 2006/C 331/33 | Case C-78/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed) | 19 |
| 2006/C 331/34 | Case C-127/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/65/EC — Distance marketing of financial services — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed) | 20 |
| 2006/C 331/35 | Case C-138/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Non-transposition within the prescribed period) | 20 |
| 2006/C 331/36 | Case C-156/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC — Credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate — Supplementary supervision — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) | 21 |
| 2006/C 331/37 | Case C-198/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/94/EC — New passenger cars — Consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions) | 21 |
| 2006/C 331/38 | Case C-218/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC — Supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate — Failure to implement within the prescribed period) | 22 |
| 2006/C 331/39 | Case C-223/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/51/EC — Company law — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Failure to implement within the prescribed period) | 22 |
| 2006/C 331/40 | Case C-252/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/92/EC — Insurance mediation — Failure to implement within the prescribed period) | 23 |
| 2006/C 331/41 | Case C-418/05 P: Order of the Court of 7 November 2006 — Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos, Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 — Action for annulment — Support scheme in the olive oil sector — Natural and legal persons — Not individually concerned) | 23 |
| 2006/C 331/42 | Case C-42/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Belgium State v Ring Occasions SA, in liquidation, Fortis Bank SA | 24 |
| 2006/C 331/43 | Case C-66/05: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands | 24 |
| 2006/C 331/44 | Case C-105/05: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland | 24 |
| 2006/C 331/45 | Case C-151/05: Order of the President of the Court of 7 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Allemagne) — F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas | 24 |
| 2006/C 331/46 | Case C-65/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium | 24 |
| 2006/C 331/47 | Case C-68/06: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic | 24 |
| 2006/C 331/48 | Case C-75/06: Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic | 25 |
| 2006/C 331/49 | Case C-88/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland | 25 |
| 2006/C 331/50 | Case C-90/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic | 25 |
| 2006/C 331/51 | Case C-108/06: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands | 25 |
| 2006/C 331/52 | Case C-118/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6 | 25 |
| 2006/C 331/53 | Case C-164/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3 | 25 |
| 2006/C 331/54 | Case C-165/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Leasys SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7 | 26 |
| 2006/C 331/55 | Case C-216/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain | 26 |
| 2006/C 331/56 | Case C-224/06: Order of the President of the Court of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain | 26 |
| 2006/C 331/57 | Case C-235/06: Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria | 26 |
| 2006/C 331/58 | Case C-258/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain | 26 |
| 2006/C 331/59 | Case C-318/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 26 |
| | COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE |
| 2006/C 331/60 | Case T-373/94: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Werners v Council and Commission (Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking — SLOM 1984 producers — Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking) | 27 |
| 2006/C 331/61 | Case T-304/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Julia Abad Pérez and Others v Council of the European Union (Common agricultural policy — Animal health — Bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Legislation relating to protection of animal health and public health — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Formal defects — Association of traders — Inadmissibility) | 27 |
| 2006/C 331/62 | Case T-217/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2006 — Ter Lembeek v Commission (State aid — Aid granted to the Belgian Beaulieu Group — Debt waiver) | 28 |
| 2006/C 331/63 | Case T-228/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for damages) | 28 |
| 2006/C 331/64 | Case T-237/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Procedure for controlling State aid — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Implied refusal — Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination — Intervention — Intervener's claims, pleas and arguments) | 29 |
| 2006/C 331/65 | Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Austrian banking market — Lombard Club — Effect on trade between Member States — Calculation of fines) | 29 |
| 2006/C 331/66 | Case T-303/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 — Westfalen Gassen Nederland v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Dutch market for industrial and medical gases — Price fixing — Proof of participation in the cartel — Proof of distancing — Principles of non-discrimination and proportionality — Calculation of fines) | 30 |
| 2006/C 331/67 | Joined Cases T-81/03, T-82/03 and T-103/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM — Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community figurative marks VENADO with frame, VENADO and VENADO ESPECIAL — Earlier Community figurative marks representing a deer's head facing forward in a circle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 30 |
| 2006/C 331/68 | Case T-95/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociación de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (State aid — Legislation providing for urgent measures to promote competition in the sector for the retail supply of petroleum products — Decision not to raise any objections — Admissibility — Legal persons — Measure of individual concern to them — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons — Duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Reasonable period of time) | 31 |
| 2006/C 331/69 | Case T-138/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — É.R. and Others v Council and Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Animal health — Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) — New variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Liability of the Community in the absence of wrongful conduct on the part of its bodies — Loss — Causation — Procedural defects — Parallel proceedings before national courts — Limitation — Inadmissibility) | 31 |
| 2006/C 331/70 | Case T-146/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociaciόn de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federaciόn Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (State aid — Spanish law providing for measures in favour of the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices — Formal examination procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC — Decision declaring that certain measures did not constitute aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing to bring proceedings — Duty to state reasons) | 32 |
| 2006/C 331/71 | Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — FNCBV and Others v Commission (Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Beef and veal — Suspension of imports — Fixing of a trade union price scale — Regulation No 26 — Associations of undertakings — Restriction of competition — Trade union action — Affecting of trade between Member States — Duty to state reasons — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of proportionality — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating and mitigating circumstances — Non-aggregation of penalties — Rights of the defence) | 32 |
| 2006/C 331/72 | Case T-416/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility) | 33 |
| 2006/C 331/73 | Case T-47/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission (Officials — Career development report — 2001/2002 appraisal procedure) | 33 |
| 2006/C 331/74 | Case T-155/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Concept of an undertaking — Complaint — Rejection) | 34 |
| 2006/C 331/75 | Case T-162/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Branco v Commission (European Social Fund (ESF) — Reduction of financial assistance — Subcontracting — Reasonable time) | 34 |
| 2006/C 331/76 | Case T-282/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Financial corrections — Rural development — Aid to the least well-off) | 34 |
| 2006/C 331/77 | Case T-310/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2006 — Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FERRO — Earlier national word mark FERRERO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Similarity of goods) | 35 |
| 2006/C 331/78 | Joined Cases T-314/04 and T-414/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Germany v Commission (European Regional Development Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Action for annulment — Act against which proceedings can be brought — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2006/C 331/79 | Case T-379/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — J v Commission (Remuneration — Expatriation allowance and installation allowance — Conditions laid down in Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State — Recovery of sums paid but not due) | 36 |
| 2006/C 331/80 | Case T-382/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission (Customs union — Rice paper from Vietnam — Remission of import duties — Equitable relief — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Error of the customs authority — Definition of manifest negligence — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Principle of proportionality) | 36 |
| 2006/C 331/81 | Case T-392/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Gagliardi v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (MANŪ MANU MANU) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark MANŪ MANU MANU — Earlier national word mark MANOU — Refusal to register — Scope and correction of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Restriction of the application for registration — Partial withdrawal of the opposition — Legal interest in bringing opposition proceedings — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Scope of the proof of use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 37 |
| 2006/C 331/82 | Case T-422/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance Chamber of 23 November 2006 — Lavagnoli v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Allocation of promotion points) | 37 |
| 2006/C 331/83 | Case T-424/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility) | 38 |
| 2006/C 331/84 | Case T-7/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Commission v Parthenon (Arbitration clause — Fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration — Recovery of sums advanced) | 38 |
| 2006/C 331/85 | Joined Cases T-35/05, T-61/05, T-107/05, T-108/05 and T-139/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and Others (Officials — Pensions — Application of the weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements set up by the regulation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 — Act adversely affecting an official — Objection of illegality) | 38 |
| 2006/C 331/86 | Case T-43/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Camper v OHIM — JC (BROTHERS by CAMPER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark BROTHERS by CAMPER — Earlier national figurative trade marks BROTHERS — Inadmissibility — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 39 |
| 2006/C 331/87 | Case T-135/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Campoli v Commission (Officials — Pensions — Weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements set up by the new Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 — Act adversely affecting an official — Objection of illegality — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Equal treatment) | 40 |
| 2006/C 331/88 | Case T-173/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Heus v Commission (Officials — Access to an internal competition — Competition notice — Condition relating to length of service — Action for annulment — Principle of non-discrimination) | 40 |
| 2006/C 331/89 | Case T-225/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza v Commission (European Social Fund — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Withdrawal of financial aid — Action for annulment — Directly concerned — Inadmissibility) | 40 |
| 2006/C 331/90 | Case T-434/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Award of promotion points — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility) | 41 |
| 2006/C 331/91 | Case T-436/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Award of promotion points — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility) | 41 |
| 2006/C 331/92 | Case T-115/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Jiménez Martínez v Commission (Officials — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Preparatory measure — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Irregularity in the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility) | 42 |
| 2006/C 331/93 | Case T-290/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Weber v Commission (Access to documents of the Community institutions — Refusal — Application initiating proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility — No need to adjudicate) | 42 |
| 2006/C 331/94 | Case T-366/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BUDWEISER — Earlier international word marks and figurative marks BUDWEISER and BUDWEISER BUDVAR — Refusal to register — Restriction of the goods covered — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 42 |
| 2006/C 331/95 | Case T-392/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — MMT v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility) | 43 |
| 2006/C 331/96 | Case T-14/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Parallel stripes on a shoe) (Community Trade Mark — Procedural issues — Plea of inadmissibility — Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Time-limit for bringing an action) | 43 |
| 2006/C 331/97 | Case T-288/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Huta Częstochowa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — State aid — Admissibility) | 44 |
| 2006/C 331/98 | Case T-409/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2006 — Latino v Commission | 44 |
| 2006/C 331/99 | Case T-283/06 R: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2006 — Dairo Air Services v Commission | 44 |
| | EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL |
| 2006/C 331/00 | Case F-17/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission (Officials — Sick leave — Placing on compulsory sick leave) | 45 |
| 2006/C 331/01 | Case F-22/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Neophytou v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Selection Board — Composition — Equal treatment — Conditions for admission) | 45 |
| 2006/C 331/02 | Case F-74/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Caldarone v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career Development Report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Obligation to state reasons for report — Annulment of the report — Claim for damages) | 46 |
| 2006/C 331/03 | Case F-77/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Balabanis and Le Dour (Officials — Promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Amendment to the Staff Regulations — Temporal application — 2004 promotion procedure — Non-inclusion in the list of officials eligible for promotion — Taking into account the probationary period when calculating the minimum length of service of two years ) | 46 |
| 2006/C 331/04 | Case F-88/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Kubanksi v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary staff — Article 5(3)(a) of the Staff Regulations — Article 82(2) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities — Withdrawal of the decision to employ the applicant as a member of the temporary staff in grade B*4 — Level of qualifications required to be employed in grade B* — New contract staff contract) | 47 |
| 2006/C 331/05 | Case F-122/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Ioannis Economidis v Commission. (Officials — Appointment — Post of Head of Unit — Rejection of applicant's candidature — Manifest error of assessment) | 47 |
| 2006/C 331/06 | Case F-10/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — André v Commission (Officials — Auxiliary staff — Contract Conference interpreter — Conditions for payment of the flat-rate travel allowance) | 48 |
| 2006/C 331/07 | Case F-118/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Klopfer v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to tests — Necessary professional experience — Part-time work) | 48 |
| 2006/C 331/08 | Case F-37/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2006 — Strack v Commission (Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Occupational illness — Act adversely affecting an official — Manifest inadmissibility) | 48 |
| 2006/C 331/09 | Case F-47/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Aimi and Others v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Career — Version of the Staff Regulations applicable on 1 May 2004 — Transition to a new career structure — Measure of general application — Equal treatment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings) | 49 |
| 2006/C 331/10 | Case F-78/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2006 — Suhadolnik v Court of Justice (Officials — Recruitment — Appointment — Probationary period — Probationer — Establishment — Grading by grade and step — Transitional measures of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Admissibility the action) | 49 |
| 2006/C 331/11 | Case F-120/06 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 December 2006 — Dálnoky v Commission (Application for interim measures — Notice of competition — Admissibility of main action — Urgency — None) | 50 |
| 2006/C 331/12 | Case F-88/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 December 2006 — Pantalis v Commission | 50 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

2006/C 331/01

Case C-380/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Approximation of laws — Directive 2003/33/EC — Advertising and sponsorship in respect of tobacco products — Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 — Choice of legal basis — Articles 95 EC and 152 EC — Principle of proportionality)

1

2006/C 331/02

Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (State aid — Aid schemes — Incompatibility with the common market — Time-limit for execution of the Commission's decisions — Abolition of aid schemes — Cancellation of outstanding aid — Recovery of aid made available — Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)

1

2006/C 331/03

Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 December 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Torino and the Tribunale di Roma — Italy) — Federico Cipolla v Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese, C-94/04) and Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte v Roberto Meloni (C-202/04) (Community competition rules — National rules concerning lawyers' fees — Setting of professional scales of charges — Freedom to provide services)

2

2006/C 331/04

Case C-306/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA (Copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3 — Concept of communication to the public — Works communicated by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms)

3

2006/C 331/05

Case C-374/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Tax credit — Separate treatment of resident and non-resident shareholders — Bilateral double taxation conventions)

3

2006/C 331/06

Case C-413/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities (Directive 2003/54/EC — Common rules for the internal market in electricity — Directive 2004/85/EC — Temporary derogations in favour of Estonia — Legal basis)

4

2006/C 331/07

Case C-414/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 — Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 — Temporary derogations in favour of Slovenia — Legal basis)

4

2006/C 331/08

Case C-446/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Directive 90/435/EEC — Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax — Exemption — Dividends received from companies resident in another Member State or a non member country — Tax credit — Advance corporation tax — Equal treatment — Claim for repayment or claim for damages)

5

2006/C 331/09

Case C-486/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Waste recovery — Installation for the production of electricity by the incineration of combustible materials derived from waste and biomass in Massafra (Taranto) — Directives 75/442/EEC and 85/337/EEC)

6

2006/C 331/10

Case C-5/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.F. Joustra (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Wine — Articles 7 to 10 — Determination of the Member State in which duties are chargeable — Acquisition by a private individual for his own use and that of other private individuals — Transport to another Member State by a transport undertaking — Arrangements applicable in the Member State of destination)

7

2006/C 331/11

Case C-32/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Failure to notify implementing measures — Obligation to adopt framework legislation in national law — None — Incomplete implementation of or failure to implement Articles 2, 7(2) and 14)

7

2006/C 331/12

Case C-97/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Mohamed Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement — Tunisian worker with permission to remain in a Member State and to work there — Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions, remuneration and dismissal — Curtailment of the period of validity of the residence permit)

8

2006/C 331/13

Case C-161/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system applicable to the common fisheries policy — Data concerning the species and quantities landed of fish — Failure to notify)

8

2006/C 331/14

Case C-170/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Denkavit Internationaal BV, Denkavit France SARL v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Exemption for dividends paid to resident companies — Withholding tax levied on dividends paid to non-resident companies — Double taxation convention — Possibility of setting off the amount withheld against tax due in another Member State)

9

2006/C 331/15

Case C-217/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Española de Petróleos SA (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and now Article 81 EC) — Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Exclusive fuel purchasing agreements designated sales guarantee commission arrangements and agency contracts between service-station operators and oil companies)

9

2006/C 331/16

Case C-238/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Asnef-Equifax, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc) (Competition — Article 81 EC — System for the exchange between financial institutions of information on customer solvency — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Effect on trade between Member States — Restriction of competition — Benefit for consumers)

10

2006/C 331/17

Case C-240/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Eurodental Sàrl (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) — Right to deduct — Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses — Intra-Community transactions relating to transactions which are exempt within the Member State — Effect of the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 28(3)(a) in conjunction with point 2 of annex E — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Partial harmonisation of VAT)

11

2006/C 331/18

Case C-257/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Obligation of establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (Kesselprüfstelle))

11

2006/C 331/19

Case C-283/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS) (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement — Article 34(2) — Judgment given in default of appearance — Ground for refusal — Meaning of the requirement that it must be possible for a defendant in default of appearance to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment — Failure to serve the judgment)

12

2006/C 331/20

Case C-293/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Urban waste-water treatment — Province of Varese)

12

2006/C 331/21

Case C-300/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (Directive 91/628/EEC — Protection of animals during transport — Watering and feeding intervals, journey times and resting periods — Definition of travel (Transportdauer) — Account to be taken of the time taken to load and unload the animals)

13

2006/C 331/22

Case C-306/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Compaq Computer International Corporation v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem (Customs value — Laptop computers equipped with operating systems software)

13

2006/C 331/23

Case C-315/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)) — Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR) (Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer — Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 12 — Compulsory statement of the alcoholic strength by volume for certain alcoholic beverages — Alcoholic beverage produced in a Member State other than that in which the distributor is established — Amaro alle erbe — Actual alcoholic strength by volume lower than that appearing on the label — Overstepping of the tolerance — Administrative fine — Liability of the distributor)

14

2006/C 331/24

Case C-316/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell (Community trade mark — Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Infringement or threatened infringement — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts — Definition of special reasons for not issuing such a prohibition — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibition is complied with — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringement coupled with penalties)

14

2006/C 331/25

Case C-357/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

15

2006/C 331/26

Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — A. Brünsteiner GmbH (C-376/05), Autohaus Hilgert GmbH (C-377/05) v Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) (Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 — Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Reorganisation of the network — Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 — Article 4(1) — Hardcore restrictions — Consequences)

16

2006/C 331/27

Case C-390/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — substances that deplete the ozone layer)

16

2006/C 331/28

Case C-401/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(e) — Scope of the exemption — Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses by an intermediary who does not have the status of dentist or dental technician — Subcontracting to a dental technician)

17

2006/C 331/29

Case C-452/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution and nuisance — Urban waste-water treatment)

17

2006/C 331/30

Case C-13/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(a) — Insurance transactions — Body providing road assistance services)

18

2006/C 331/31

Case C-48/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/90/EC — Facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

18

2006/C 331/32

Case C-54/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

19

2006/C 331/33

Case C-78/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

19

2006/C 331/34

Case C-127/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/65/EC — Distance marketing of financial services — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

20

2006/C 331/35

Case C-138/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

20

2006/C 331/36

Case C-156/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC — Credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate — Supplementary supervision — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

21

2006/C 331/37

Case C-198/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/94/EC — New passenger cars — Consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions)

2

21

2006/C 331/38

Case C-218/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC — Supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

22

2006/C 331/39

Case C-223/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/51/EC — Company law — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

22

2006/C 331/40

Case C-252/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/92/EC — Insurance mediation — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

23

2006/C 331/41

Case C-418/05 P: Order of the Court of 7 November 2006 — Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos, Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 — Action for annulment — Support scheme in the olive oil sector — Natural and legal persons — Not individually concerned)

23

2006/C 331/42

Case C-42/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Belgium State v Ring Occasions SA, in liquidation, Fortis Bank SA

24

2006/C 331/43

Case C-66/05: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

24

2006/C 331/44

Case C-105/05: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

24

2006/C 331/45

Case C-151/05: Order of the President of the Court of 7 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Allemagne) — F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

24

2006/C 331/46

Case C-65/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

24

2006/C 331/47

Case C-68/06: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

24

2006/C 331/48

Case C-75/06: Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

25

2006/C 331/49

Case C-88/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

25

2006/C 331/50

Case C-90/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

25

2006/C 331/51

Case C-108/06: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

25

2006/C 331/52

Case C-118/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6

25

2006/C 331/53

Case C-164/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

25

2006/C 331/54

Case C-165/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Leasys SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7

26

2006/C 331/55

Case C-216/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

26

2006/C 331/56

Case C-224/06: Order of the President of the Court of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

26

2006/C 331/57

Case C-235/06: Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

26

2006/C 331/58

Case C-258/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

26

2006/C 331/59

Case C-318/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

26

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

2006/C 331/60

Case T-373/94: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Werners v Council and Commission (Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking — SLOM 1984 producers — Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

27

2006/C 331/61

Case T-304/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Julia Abad Pérez and Others v Council of the European Union (Common agricultural policy — Animal health — Bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Legislation relating to protection of animal health and public health — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Formal defects — Association of traders — Inadmissibility)

27

2006/C 331/62

Case T-217/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2006 — Ter Lembeek v Commission (State aid — Aid granted to the Belgian Beaulieu Group — Debt waiver)

28

2006/C 331/63

Case T-228/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for damages)

28

2006/C 331/64

Case T-237/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Procedure for controlling State aid — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Implied refusal — Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination — Intervention — Intervener's claims, pleas and arguments)

29

2006/C 331/65

Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Austrian banking market — Lombard Club — Effect on trade between Member States — Calculation of fines)

29

2006/C 331/66

Case T-303/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 — Westfalen Gassen Nederland v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Dutch market for industrial and medical gases — Price fixing — Proof of participation in the cartel — Proof of distancing — Principles of non-discrimination and proportionality — Calculation of fines)

30

2006/C 331/67

Joined Cases T-81/03, T-82/03 and T-103/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM — Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community figurative marks VENADO with frame, VENADO and VENADO ESPECIAL — Earlier Community figurative marks representing a deer's head facing forward in a circle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

30

2006/C 331/68

Case T-95/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociación de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (State aid — Legislation providing for urgent measures to promote competition in the sector for the retail supply of petroleum products — Decision not to raise any objections — Admissibility — Legal persons — Measure of individual concern to them — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons — Duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Reasonable period of time)

31

2006/C 331/69

Case T-138/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — É.R. and Others v Council and Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Animal health — Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) — New variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Liability of the Community in the absence of wrongful conduct on the part of its bodies — Loss — Causation — Procedural defects — Parallel proceedings before national courts — Limitation — Inadmissibility)

31

2006/C 331/70

Case T-146/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociaciόn de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federaciόn Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (State aid — Spanish law providing for measures in favour of the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices — Formal examination procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC — Decision declaring that certain measures did not constitute aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing to bring proceedings — Duty to state reasons)

32

2006/C 331/71

Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — FNCBV and Others v Commission (Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Beef and veal — Suspension of imports — Fixing of a trade union price scale — Regulation No 26 — Associations of undertakings — Restriction of competition — Trade union action — Affecting of trade between Member States — Duty to state reasons — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of proportionality — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating and mitigating circumstances — Non-aggregation of penalties — Rights of the defence)

32

2006/C 331/72

Case T-416/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility)

33

2006/C 331/73

Case T-47/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission (Officials — Career development report — 2001/2002 appraisal procedure)

33

2006/C 331/74

Case T-155/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Concept of an undertaking — Complaint — Rejection)

34

2006/C 331/75

Case T-162/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Branco v Commission (European Social Fund (ESF) — Reduction of financial assistance — Subcontracting — Reasonable time)

34

2006/C 331/76

Case T-282/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Financial corrections — Rural development — Aid to the least well-off)

34

2006/C 331/77

Case T-310/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2006 — Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FERRO — Earlier national word mark FERRERO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Similarity of goods)

35

2006/C 331/78

Joined Cases T-314/04 and T-414/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Germany v Commission (European Regional Development Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Action for annulment — Act against which proceedings can be brought — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

35

2006/C 331/79

Case T-379/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — J v Commission (Remuneration — Expatriation allowance and installation allowance — Conditions laid down in Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State — Recovery of sums paid but not due)

36

2006/C 331/80

Case T-382/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission (Customs union — Rice paper from Vietnam — Remission of import duties — Equitable relief — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Error of the customs authority — Definition of manifest negligence — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Principle of proportionality)

36

2006/C 331/81

Case T-392/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Gagliardi v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (MANŪ MANU MANU) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark MANŪ MANU MANU — Earlier national word mark MANOU — Refusal to register — Scope and correction of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Restriction of the application for registration — Partial withdrawal of the opposition — Legal interest in bringing opposition proceedings — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Scope of the proof of use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

37

2006/C 331/82

Case T-422/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance Chamber of 23 November 2006 — Lavagnoli v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Allocation of promotion points)

37

2006/C 331/83

Case T-424/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility)

38

2006/C 331/84

Case T-7/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Commission v Parthenon (Arbitration clause — Fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration — Recovery of sums advanced)

38

2006/C 331/85

Joined Cases T-35/05, T-61/05, T-107/05, T-108/05 and T-139/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and Others (Officials — Pensions — Application of the weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements set up by the regulation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 — Act adversely affecting an official — Objection of illegality)

38

2006/C 331/86

Case T-43/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Camper v OHIM — JC (BROTHERS by CAMPER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark BROTHERS by CAMPER — Earlier national figurative trade marks BROTHERS — Inadmissibility — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

39

2006/C 331/87

Case T-135/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Campoli v Commission (Officials — Pensions — Weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements set up by the new Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 — Act adversely affecting an official — Objection of illegality — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Equal treatment)

40

2006/C 331/88

Case T-173/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Heus v Commission (Officials — Access to an internal competition — Competition notice — Condition relating to length of service — Action for annulment — Principle of non-discrimination)

40

2006/C 331/89

Case T-225/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza v Commission (European Social Fund — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Withdrawal of financial aid — Action for annulment — Directly concerned — Inadmissibility)

40

2006/C 331/90

Case T-434/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Award of promotion points — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

41

2006/C 331/91

Case T-436/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Award of promotion points — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

41

2006/C 331/92

Case T-115/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Jiménez Martínez v Commission (Officials — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Preparatory measure — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Irregularity in the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

42

2006/C 331/93

Case T-290/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Weber v Commission (Access to documents of the Community institutions — Refusal — Application initiating proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility — No need to adjudicate)

42

2006/C 331/94

Case T-366/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BUDWEISER — Earlier international word marks and figurative marks BUDWEISER and BUDWEISER BUDVAR — Refusal to register — Restriction of the goods covered — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

42

2006/C 331/95

Case T-392/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — MMT v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility)

43

2006/C 331/96

Case T-14/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Parallel stripes on a shoe) (Community Trade Mark — Procedural issues — Plea of inadmissibility — Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Time-limit for bringing an action)

43

2006/C 331/97

Case T-288/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Huta Częstochowa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — State aid — Admissibility)

44

2006/C 331/98

Case T-409/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2006 — Latino v Commission

44

2006/C 331/99

Case T-283/06 R: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2006 — Dairo Air Services v Commission

44

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

2006/C 331/00

Case F-17/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission (Officials — Sick leave — Placing on compulsory sick leave)

45

2006/C 331/01

Case F-22/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Neophytou v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Selection Board — Composition — Equal treatment — Conditions for admission)

45

2006/C 331/02

Case F-74/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Caldarone v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career Development Report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Obligation to state reasons for report — Annulment of the report — Claim for damages)

46

2006/C 331/03

Case F-77/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Balabanis and Le Dour (Officials — Promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Amendment to the Staff Regulations — Temporal application — 2004 promotion procedure — Non-inclusion in the list of officials eligible for promotion — Taking into account the probationary period when calculating the minimum length of service of two years )

46

2006/C 331/04

Case F-88/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Kubanksi v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary staff — Article 5(3)(a) of the Staff Regulations — Article 82(2) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities — Withdrawal of the decision to employ the applicant as a member of the temporary staff in grade B*4 — Level of qualifications required to be employed in grade B* — New contract staff contract)

47

2006/C 331/05

Case F-122/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Ioannis Economidis v Commission. (Officials — Appointment — Post of Head of Unit — Rejection of applicant's candidature — Manifest error of assessment)

47

2006/C 331/06

Case F-10/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — André v Commission (Officials — Auxiliary staff — Contract Conference interpreter — Conditions for payment of the flat-rate travel allowance)

48

2006/C 331/07

Case F-118/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Klopfer v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to tests — Necessary professional experience — Part-time work)

48

2006/C 331/08

Case F-37/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2006 — Strack v Commission (Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Occupational illness — Act adversely affecting an official — Manifest inadmissibility)

48

2006/C 331/09

Case F-47/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Aimi and Others v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Career — Version of the Staff Regulations applicable on 1 May 2004 — Transition to a new career structure — Measure of general application — Equal treatment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

49

2006/C 331/10

Case F-78/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2006 — Suhadolnik v Court of Justice (Officials — Recruitment — Appointment — Probationary period — Probationer — Establishment — Grading by grade and step — Transitional measures of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Admissibility the action)

49

2006/C 331/11

Case F-120/06 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 December 2006 — Dálnoky v Commission (Application for interim measures — Notice of competition — Admissibility of main action — Urgency — None)

50

2006/C 331/12

Case F-88/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 December 2006 — Pantalis v Commission

50

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 331/13 | Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006 | 51 |

III   Notices

2006/C 331/13

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

51

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/1

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-380/03) (1)

(Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Directive 2003/33/EC - Advertising and sponsorship in respect of tobacco products - Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 - Choice of legal basis - Articles 95 EC and 152 EC - Principle of proportionality)

(2006/C 331/01)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski, acting as Agents, and J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea and M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and E. Bygglin, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, acting as Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy, L. Pignataro-Nolin and F. Hoffmeister, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16) — Legal basis (Article 95 EC) — Attainment of the objective of the establishment of the internal market by prohibition of that activity — Scope of the prohibition on any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States for the purposes of protecting human health (Article 152 EC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European Communities each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European Communities each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/1

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03) (1)

(State aid - Aid schemes - Incompatibility with the common market - Time-limit for execution of the Commission's decisions - Abolition of aid schemes - Cancellation of outstanding aid - Recovery of aid made available - Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)

(2006/C 331/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to ensure the application of Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission decision of 11 July 2001 concerning the State aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of undertakings in the province of Álava in the form of a tax credit of 45 % of the investments made (notified under No C(2001)1759) (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 1) — Tax measures in the historic territory of Álava — Obligation to recover aid already paid and obligation to abolish future payments

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all of the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2 and 3 of each of the following decisions:






  — | Commission Decision 2002/820/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Álava in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-485/03); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all of the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2 and 3 of each of the following decisions:

—

Commission Decision 2002/820/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Álava in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-485/03);

| — | Commission Decision 2002/892/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Álava (Case C-488/03); |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Decision 2002/892/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Álava (Case C-488/03);

| — | Commission Decision 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-487/03); |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Decision 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-487/03);

| — | Commission Decision 2002/806/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Vizcaya (Case C-490/03); |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Decision 2002/806/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Vizcaya (Case C-490/03);

| — | Commission Decision 2002/894/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Guipúzcoa in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-486/03), and |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Decision 2002/894/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Guipúzcoa in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (Case C-486/03), and

| — | Commission Decision 2002/540/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Guipúzcoa (Case C-489/03), |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Decision 2002/540/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Guipúzcoa (Case C-489/03),

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those decisions;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 December 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Torino and the Tribunale di Roma — Italy) — Federico Cipolla v Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese, C-94/04) and Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte v Roberto Meloni (C-202/04)

(Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04) (1)

(Community competition rules - National rules concerning lawyers' fees - Setting of professional scales of charges - Freedom to provide services)

(2006/C 331/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federico Cipolla (C-94/04) and Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte (C-202/04)

Defendants: Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese (C-94/04), Roberto Meloni (C-202/04)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Torino — Applicability of Community competition rules to lawyers' services — National rules laying down scales of fees to which no exceptions can be made and under which any agreement between client and lawyer concerning professional fees is void

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Roma — Comparability with Articles 10 EC and 81 EC of national rules approving a tariff of fees encompassing services provided by lawyers in the area of legal representation and legal consultation which may also be provided by non-lawyers — Tariff proposed by the professional body of lawyers

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC do not preclude a Member State from adopting a legislative measure which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of lawyers such as the Consiglio nazionale forense (National Lawyers' Council), a scale fixing a minimum fee for members of the legal profession from which there can generally be no derogation in respect of either services reserved to those members or those, such as out-of-court services, which may also be provided by any other economic operator not subject to that scale. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC do not preclude a Member State from adopting a legislative measure which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of lawyers such as the Consiglio nazionale forense (National Lawyers' Council), a scale fixing a minimum fee for members of the legal profession from which there can generally be no derogation in respect of either services reserved to those members or those, such as out-of-court services, which may also be provided by any other economic operator not subject to that scale.

| 2. | Legislation containing an absolute prohibition of derogation, by agreement, from the minimum fees set by a scale of lawyers' fees, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for services which are (a) court services and (b) reserved to lawyers constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 EC. It is for the national court to determine whether such legislation, in the light of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the objectives of protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice which might justify it and whether the restrictions it imposes do not appear disproportionate having regard to those objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Legislation containing an absolute prohibition of derogation, by agreement, from the minimum fees set by a scale of lawyers' fees, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for services which are (a) court services and (b) reserved to lawyers constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 EC. It is for the national court to determine whether such legislation, in the light of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the objectives of protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice which might justify it and whether the restrictions it imposes do not appear disproportionate having regard to those objectives.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA

(Case C-306/05) (1)

(Copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3 - Concept of communication to the public - Works communicated by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms)

(2006/C 331/04)

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: Rafael Hoteles SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EEC 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 2001 L 167, page 10) — Meaning of ‘act of communication to the public’ (Article 3 of the directive) — Meaning of ‘strictly domestic location’ — Works made available on television sets installed in hotel rooms

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | While the mere provision of physical facilities does not as such amount to communication within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of copyright and related rights in the information society, the distribution of a signal by means of television sets by a hotel to customers staying in its rooms, whatever technique is used to transmit the signal, constitutes communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

While the mere provision of physical facilities does not as such amount to communication within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of copyright and related rights in the information society, the distribution of a signal by means of television sets by a hotel to customers staying in its rooms, whatever technique is used to transmit the signal, constitutes communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.

| 2. | The private nature of hotel rooms does not preclude the communication of a work by means of television sets from constituting communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The private nature of hotel rooms does not preclude the communication of a work by means of television sets from constituting communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue

(Case C-374/04) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Payment of dividends - Tax credit - Separate treatment of resident and non-resident shareholders - Bilateral double taxation conventions)

(2006/C 331/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation

Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — National legislation on corporation tax — Retention at source (‘advance corporation tax’) applied to the profits distributed by a subsidiary to a parent company — Tax credit designed to take account of a retention made upstream — Benefit of the tax credit limited to residents and to residents of certain other Member States party to a convention for avoiding double taxation containing a clause to that effect — Liability of a Member State for breach of Community law — Form of redress

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not prevent a Member State, on a distribution of dividends by a company resident in that State, from granting companies receiving those dividends which are also resident in that State a tax credit equal to the fraction of the corporation tax paid on the distributed profits by the company making the distribution, when it does not grant such a tax credit to companies receiving such dividends which are resident in another Member State and are not subject to tax on dividends in the first State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not prevent a Member State, on a distribution of dividends by a company resident in that State, from granting companies receiving those dividends which are also resident in that State a tax credit equal to the fraction of the corporation tax paid on the distributed profits by the company making the distribution, when it does not grant such a tax credit to companies receiving such dividends which are resident in another Member State and are not subject to tax on dividends in the first State;

| 2. | Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not preclude a situation in which a Member State does not extend the entitlement to a tax credit provided for in a double taxation convention concluded with another Member State for companies resident in the second State which receive dividends from a company resident in the first State to companies resident in a third Member State with which it has concluded a double taxation convention which does not provide for such an entitlement for companies resident in that third State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not preclude a situation in which a Member State does not extend the entitlement to a tax credit provided for in a double taxation convention concluded with another Member State for companies resident in the second State which receive dividends from a company resident in the first State to companies resident in a third Member State with which it has concluded a double taxation convention which does not provide for such an entitlement for companies resident in that third State.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-413/04) (1)

(Directive 2003/54/EC - Common rules for the internal market in electricity - Directive 2004/85/EC - Temporary derogations in favour of Estonia - Legal basis)

(2006/C 331/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by A. Baas and U. Rösslein, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union, (represented by A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Sack and P. Van Nuffel, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia, (represented by L. Uibo, agent), Republic of Poland, (represented by M. Węglarz, T. Nowakowski and T. Krawczyk, agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Directive 2004/85/EC of 28 June 2004 amending Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application of certain provisions to Estonia (OJ 2004 L 236, p. 10) — Legal basis

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Council Directive 2004/85/EC of 28 June 2004 amending Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application of certain provisions to Estonia, in so far as it grants Estonia a derogation from the application of Article 21(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC going beyond 31 December 2008 and imposes a corresponding obligation to ensure only a partial opening of the market representing 35 % of consumption on 1 January 2009 and an obligation to communicate annually the consumption thresholds extending eligibility to final customers; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Council Directive 2004/85/EC of 28 June 2004 amending Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application of certain provisions to Estonia, in so far as it grants Estonia a derogation from the application of Article 21(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC going beyond 31 December 2008 and imposes a corresponding obligation to ensure only a partial opening of the market representing 35 % of consumption on 1 January 2009 and an obligation to communicate annually the consumption thresholds extending eligibility to final customers;

| 2) | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3) | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 4) | Orders the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Estonia and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Estonia and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-414/04) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 - Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 - Temporary derogations in favour of Slovenia - Legal basis)

(2006/C 331/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament, (represented by: A. Baas and U. Rösslein, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by J. Sack and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia, (represented by L. Uibo, Agent) Republic of Poland, represented by M. Węglarz, T. Nowakowski and T. Krawczyk, Agents

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 of 28 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the date of application of certain provisions to Slovenia (OJ 2004 L 233, p. 3) — Legal basis

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 of 28 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the date of application of certain provisions to Slovenia; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 of 28 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the date of application of certain provisions to Slovenia;

| 2) | Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1223/2004 until the adoption, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation founded on an appropriate legal basis, without however prolonging those effects beyond 1 July 2007; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1223/2004 until the adoption, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation founded on an appropriate legal basis, without however prolonging those effects beyond 1 July 2007;

| 3) | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 4) | Orders the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Estonia and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Estonia and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue

(Case C-446/04) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Directive 90/435/EEC - Corporation tax - Payment of dividends - Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax - Exemption - Dividends received from companies resident in another Member State or a non member country - Tax credit - Advance corporation tax - Equal treatment - Claim for repayment or claim for damages)

(2006/C 331/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation

Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC and Articles 4(1) and 6 of 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) — Tax exemption granted in a Member State to a company established in its territory which received dividends paid by companies also established in its territory — Exemption not granted for dividends paid to that company by companies established in the territory of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Articles 43 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has a system for preventing or mitigating the imposition of a series of charges to tax or economic double taxation as regards dividends paid to residents by resident companies, it must treat dividends paid to residents by non-resident companies in the same way.
  Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non resident company in which the resident company holds at least 10 % of the voting rights, while at the same time granting a tax credit in the latter case for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.
  Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that State levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which it holds less than 10 % of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the State in which the latter is resident. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has a system for preventing or mitigating the imposition of a series of charges to tax or economic double taxation as regards dividends paid to residents by resident companies, it must treat dividends paid to residents by non-resident companies in the same way.

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non resident company in which the resident company holds at least 10 % of the voting rights, while at the same time granting a tax credit in the latter case for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.

Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that State levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which it holds less than 10 % of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the State in which the latter is resident.

| 2) | Articles 43 EC and 56 EC preclude legislation of a Member State which allows a resident company receiving dividends from another resident company to deduct from the amount which the former company is liable to pay by way of advance corporation tax the amount of that tax paid by the latter company, whereas no such deduction is permitted in the case of a resident company receiving dividends from a non resident company as regards the corresponding tax on distributed profits paid by the latter company in the State in which it is resident. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC preclude legislation of a Member State which allows a resident company receiving dividends from another resident company to deduct from the amount which the former company is liable to pay by way of advance corporation tax the amount of that tax paid by the latter company, whereas no such deduction is permitted in the case of a resident company receiving dividends from a non resident company as regards the corresponding tax on distributed profits paid by the latter company in the State in which it is resident.

| 3) | Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which provides that any relief for tax paid abroad made available to a resident company which has received foreign-sourced dividends is to reduce the amount of corporation tax against which that company may offset advance corporation tax.
  Article 43 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which allows a resident company to surrender to resident subsidiaries the amount of advance corporation tax paid which cannot be offset against the liability of that company to corporation tax for the current accounting period or previous or subsequent accounting periods, so that those subsidiaries may offset it against their liability to corporation tax, but does not allow a resident company to surrender such an amount to non-resident subsidiaries where the latter are taxable in that Member State on the profits which they made there. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which provides that any relief for tax paid abroad made available to a resident company which has received foreign-sourced dividends is to reduce the amount of corporation tax against which that company may offset advance corporation tax.

Article 43 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which allows a resident company to surrender to resident subsidiaries the amount of advance corporation tax paid which cannot be offset against the liability of that company to corporation tax for the current accounting period or previous or subsequent accounting periods, so that those subsidiaries may offset it against their liability to corporation tax, but does not allow a resident company to surrender such an amount to non-resident subsidiaries where the latter are taxable in that Member State on the profits which they made there.

| 4) | Articles 43 EC and 56 EC preclude legislation of a Member State which, while exempting from advance corporation tax resident companies paying dividends to their shareholders which have their origin in nationally-sourced dividends received by them, allows resident companies distributing dividends to their shareholders which have their origin in foreign-sourced dividends received by them to elect to be taxed under a regime which permits them to recover the advance corporation tax paid but, first, obliges those companies to pay that advance corporation tax and subsequently to claim repayment and, secondly, does not provide a tax credit for their shareholders, whereas those shareholders would have received such a tax credit in the case of a distribution made by a resident company which had its origin in nationally-sourced dividends. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC preclude legislation of a Member State which, while exempting from advance corporation tax resident companies paying dividends to their shareholders which have their origin in nationally-sourced dividends received by them, allows resident companies distributing dividends to their shareholders which have their origin in foreign-sourced dividends received by them to elect to be taxed under a regime which permits them to recover the advance corporation tax paid but, first, obliges those companies to pay that advance corporation tax and subsequently to claim repayment and, secondly, does not provide a tax credit for their shareholders, whereas those shareholders would have received such a tax credit in the case of a distribution made by a resident company which had its origin in nationally-sourced dividends.

| 5) | Article 57(1) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that where, before 31 December 1993, a Member State has adopted legislation which contains restrictions on capital movements to or from non-member countries which are prohibited by Article 56 EC and, after that date, adopts measures which, while also constituting a restriction on such movements, are essentially identical to the previous legislation or do no more than restrict or abolish an obstacle to the exercise of the Community rights and freedoms arising under that previous legislation, Article 56 EC does not preclude the application of those measures to non-member countries when they apply to capital movements involving direct investment, including investment in real estate, establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets. Holdings in a company which are not acquired with a view to the establishment or maintenance of lasting and direct economic links between the shareholder and that company and do not allow the shareholder to participate effectively in the management of that company or in its control cannot, in this connection, be regarded as direct investments. |
| --- | --- |

5)

Article 57(1) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that where, before 31 December 1993, a Member State has adopted legislation which contains restrictions on capital movements to or from non-member countries which are prohibited by Article 56 EC and, after that date, adopts measures which, while also constituting a restriction on such movements, are essentially identical to the previous legislation or do no more than restrict or abolish an obstacle to the exercise of the Community rights and freedoms arising under that previous legislation, Article 56 EC does not preclude the application of those measures to non-member countries when they apply to capital movements involving direct investment, including investment in real estate, establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets. Holdings in a company which are not acquired with a view to the establishment or maintenance of lasting and direct economic links between the shareholder and that company and do not allow the shareholder to participate effectively in the management of that company or in its control cannot, in this connection, be regarded as direct investments.

| 6) | In the absence of Community legislation, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, including the classification of claims brought by injured parties before the national courts and tribunals. Those courts and tribunals are, however, obliged to ensure that individuals should have an effective legal remedy enabling them to obtain reimbursement of the tax unlawfully levied on them and the amounts paid to that Member State or withheld by it directly against that tax. As regards other loss or damage which a person may have sustained by reason of a breach of Community law for which a Member State is liable, the latter is under a duty to make reparation for the loss or damage caused to individuals in the conditions set out in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, but that does not preclude the State from being liable under less restrictive conditions, where national law so provides. |
| --- | --- |

6)

In the absence of Community legislation, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, including the classification of claims brought by injured parties before the national courts and tribunals. Those courts and tribunals are, however, obliged to ensure that individuals should have an effective legal remedy enabling them to obtain reimbursement of the tax unlawfully levied on them and the amounts paid to that Member State or withheld by it directly against that tax. As regards other loss or damage which a person may have sustained by reason of a breach of Community law for which a Member State is liable, the latter is under a duty to make reparation for the loss or damage caused to individuals in the conditions set out in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, but that does not preclude the State from being liable under less restrictive conditions, where national law so provides.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

(Case C-486/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Waste recovery - Installation for the production of electricity by the incineration of combustible materials derived from waste and biomass in Massafra (Taranto) - Directives 75/442/EEC and 85/337/EEC)

(2006/C 331/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek, Agent, A. Capobianco and F. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, agent, M. Fiorilli and G. Fiengo, lawyers)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 2(1) and Article 4(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Installation for the production of electricity by the incineration of combustible material derived from waste and biomass at Massafra (Taranto)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that






  — | by exempting from the environmental impact assessment procedure the Massafra installation for the incineration of combustible materials derived from waste and biomass, with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day, covered by point 10 of Annex I to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that

—

by exempting from the environmental impact assessment procedure the Massafra installation for the incineration of combustible materials derived from waste and biomass, with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day, covered by point 10 of Annex I to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997,

| — | by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, entitled ‘Policy and coordination measure amending and completing the earlier policy and coordination measure for the implementation of Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994 concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environmental impact’, amending Annex A(i) and (l) to the Decree of the President of the Republic of 12 April 1996, entitled ‘Policy and coordination measure for the implementation of Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994 concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environmental impact’, allowing projects for the recovery of hazardous and non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day covered by Annex I to Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Council Directive 97/11, to avoid the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for in Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of that directive, and |
| --- | --- |

—

by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, entitled ‘Policy and coordination measure amending and completing the earlier policy and coordination measure for the implementation of Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994 concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environmental impact’, amending Annex A(i) and (l) to the Decree of the President of the Republic of 12 April 1996, entitled ‘Policy and coordination measure for the implementation of Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994 concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environmental impact’, allowing projects for the recovery of hazardous and non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day covered by Annex I to Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Council Directive 97/11, to avoid the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for in Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of that directive, and

| — | by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, laying down, for the purposes of determining whether a project covered by Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, must be subject to an environmental impact assessment, a criterion which is inappropriate in that it may exclude projects which have a significant effect on the environment from that assessment, |
| --- | --- |

—

by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, laying down, for the purposes of determining whether a project covered by Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, must be subject to an environmental impact assessment, a criterion which is inappropriate in that it may exclude projects which have a significant effect on the environment from that assessment,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1) and 4(1), (2) and (3) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.F. Joustra

(Case C-5/05) (1)

(Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Wine - Articles 7 to 10 - Determination of the Member State in which duties are chargeable - Acquisition by a private individual for his own use and that of other private individuals - Transport to another Member State by a transport undertaking - Arrangements applicable in the Member State of destination)

(2006/C 331/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: B.F. Joustra

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Wine purchased without the intention of making a profit in one Member State by nationals of another Member State and transported by an undertaking from that second Member State — Excise duty paid in the first Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be construed as meaning that where, as in the case in the main proceedings, a private individual who is not operating commercially or with a view to making a profit acquires in one Member State, for his own personal requirements and those of other private individuals, products subject to excise duty which have been released for consumption in that Member State and arranges for them to be transported to another Member State on his behalf by a transport company established in that other State, Article 7 of that Directive, and not Article 8 thereof, is applicable, with the result that excise duty is also to be levied in that other State. Under Article 7(6) of the Directive, the excise duty paid in the first State is, in such a case, to be reimbursed in accordance with Article 22(3) of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-32/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Failure to notify implementing measures - Obligation to adopt framework legislation in national law - None - Incomplete implementation of or failure to implement Articles 2, 7(2) and 14)

(2006/C 331/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent, and by P. Kinsch, avocat)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the laws, regulations and administrative provisions implementing Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, except for those relating to Article 3 of that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the laws, regulations and administrative provisions implementing Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, except for those relating to Article 3 of that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;

| 2. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 7(2) and 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 7(2) and 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 4. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Mohamed Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim

(Case C-97/05) (1)

(Euro-Mediterranean Agreement - Tunisian worker with permission to remain in a Member State and to work there - Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions, remuneration and dismissal - Curtailment of the period of validity of the residence permit)

(2006/C 331/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Gattoussi

Defendant: Stadt Rüsselsheim

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Administrative Court, Darmstadt) — Interpretation of Art. 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia of the other part (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2) — Worker of Tunisian nationality employed in a Member State — Equal treatment as regards working conditions and remuneration — Curtailment of the period of the validity of residence permit bringing the worker's employment to an end

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, done at Brussels on 17 July 1995 and approved on behalf of the European Community and the European Coal and Steel Community by Decision 98/238/EC, ECSC of the Council and the Commission of 26 January 1998, that provision may have effects on the right of a Tunisian national to remain in the territory of a Member State in the case where that person has been duly permitted by that Member State to work there for a period extending beyond the period of validity of his permission to remain.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-161/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Control system applicable to the common fisheries policy - Data concerning the species and quantities landed of fish - Failure to notify)

(2006/C 331/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, Agent)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, G. Aiello and D. Del Grazio, lawyers)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) — Failure to notify the data concerning the species and quantities of fish caught

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to notify the data referred to in Articles 15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy for 1999 and 2000, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to notify the data referred to in Articles 15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy for 1999 and 2000, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Denkavit Internationaal BV, Denkavit France SARL v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

(Case C-170/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Payment of dividends - Exemption for dividends paid to resident companies - Withholding tax levied on dividends paid to non-resident companies - Double taxation convention - Possibility of setting off the amount withheld against tax due in another Member State)

(2006/C 331/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Denkavit Internationaal BV, Denkavit France SARL

Defendant: Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Art. 43 EC — Deduction of tax at source on dividends paid to a parent company established in another Member State, but exemption for dividends paid to a parent company established in France — Taxation Convention providing that the tax may be set off against the amount due in the other Member State

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC preclude national legislation which, in imposing a liability to tax on dividends paid to a non-resident parent company and allowing resident parent companies almost full exemption from such tax, constitutes a discriminatory restriction on freedom of establishment; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC preclude national legislation which, in imposing a liability to tax on dividends paid to a non-resident parent company and allowing resident parent companies almost full exemption from such tax, constitutes a discriminatory restriction on freedom of establishment;

| 2) | Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC preclude national legislation which imposes, only as regards non-resident parent companies, a withholding tax on dividends paid by resident subsidiaries, even if a tax convention between the Member State in question and another Member State, authorising that withholding tax, provides for the tax due in that other State to be set off against the tax charged in accordance with the disputed system, whereas a parent company is unable to set off tax in that other Member State, in the manner provided for by that convention. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC preclude national legislation which imposes, only as regards non-resident parent companies, a withholding tax on dividends paid by resident subsidiaries, even if a tax convention between the Member State in question and another Member State, authorising that withholding tax, provides for the tax due in that other State to be set off against the tax charged in accordance with the disputed system, whereas a parent company is unable to set off tax in that other Member State, in the manner provided for by that convention.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Española de Petróleos SA

(Case C-217/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and now Article 81 EC) - Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 - Exclusive fuel purchasing agreements designated ‘sales guarantee commission arrangements’ and ‘agency contracts’ between service-station operators and oil companies)

(2006/C 331/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio

Defendant: Compañía Española de Petróleos SA,

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 10 to 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) — Contracts for the exclusive distribution of motor-vehicle and other fuels classified as agency or commission contracts but including certain particular features

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and now Article 81 EC) applies to an agreement for the exclusive distribution of motor-vehicle and other fuels, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concluded between a supplier and a service-station operator where that operator assumes, to a non-negligible extent, one or more financial and commercial risks linked to the sale to third parties. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and now Article 81 EC) applies to an agreement for the exclusive distribution of motor-vehicle and other fuels, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concluded between a supplier and a service-station operator where that operator assumes, to a non-negligible extent, one or more financial and commercial risks linked to the sale to third parties.

| 2. | Articles 10 to 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements must be interpreted as not covering such an agreement in so far as it requires the service-station operator to charge the final retail price stipulated by the supplier. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 10 to 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements must be interpreted as not covering such an agreement in so far as it requires the service-station operator to charge the final retail price stipulated by the supplier.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Asnef-Equifax, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)

(Case C-238/05) (1)

(Competition - Article 81 EC - System for the exchange between financial institutions of information on customer solvency - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Effect on trade between Member States - Restriction of competition - Benefit for consumers)

(2006/C 331/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ASNEF-EQUIFAX, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL

Defendant: Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 81 EC — Compatibility with the common market of an agreement setting up a system for the exchange between financial institutions of information on customer solvency — Beneficial effects for consumers and users of financial services — Possibility of Member States granting an exemption

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 81(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that a system for the exchange of information on credit between financial institutions, such as the register of information on customer solvency at issue in the main proceedings, does not, in principle, have as its effect the restriction of competition within the meaning of that provision, provided that the relevant market or markets are not highly concentrated, that that system does not permit lenders to be identified and that the conditions of access and use by financial institutions are not discriminatory, in law or in fact. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 81(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that a system for the exchange of information on credit between financial institutions, such as the register of information on customer solvency at issue in the main proceedings, does not, in principle, have as its effect the restriction of competition within the meaning of that provision, provided that the relevant market or markets are not highly concentrated, that that system does not permit lenders to be identified and that the conditions of access and use by financial institutions are not discriminatory, in law or in fact.

| 2) | In the event that a system for the exchange of information on credit, such as that register, restricts competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, the applicability of the exemption provided for in Article 81(3) EC is subject to the four cumulative conditions laid down in that provision. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied. In order for the condition that consumers be allowed a fair share of the benefit to be satisfied, it is not necessary, in principle, for each consumer individually to derive a benefit from an agreement, a decision or a concerted practice. However, the overall effect on consumers in the relevant markets must be favourable. |
| --- | --- |

2)

In the event that a system for the exchange of information on credit, such as that register, restricts competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, the applicability of the exemption provided for in Article 81(3) EC is subject to the four cumulative conditions laid down in that provision. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied. In order for the condition that consumers be allowed a fair share of the benefit to be satisfied, it is not necessary, in principle, for each consumer individually to derive a benefit from an agreement, a decision or a concerted practice. However, the overall effect on consumers in the relevant markets must be favourable.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Eurodental Sàrl

(Case C-240/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) - Right to deduct - Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses - Intra-Community transactions relating to transactions which are exempt within the Member State - Effect of the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 28(3)(a) in conjunction with point 2 of annex E - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Partial harmonisation of VAT)

(2006/C 331/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel (Luxembourg)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines

Defendant: Eurodental Sàrl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended — Deductibility of VAT charged on goods used for certain intra-Community transactions where these transactions are exempt if carried out within the territory of the country — Making and repairing of dental prostheses

Operative part of the judgment

A transaction which is exempted from value added tax within the territory of a Member State under Article 13A(1)(e) of the 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 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers and Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 introducing simplification measures with regard to value added tax, does not give rise to the right to deduct input value added tax pursuant to Article 17(3)(b) of that directive, even when it is an intra-Community transaction, and regardless of the system of value added tax applicable in the Member State of destination.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-257/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Obligation of establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (‘Kesselprüfstelle’))

(2006/C 331/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Obligations laid down by national legislation to have the seat of the undertaking or an establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (‘Kesselprüfstelle’)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by providing in Paragraph 21(4) of the Federal law on the security measures for steam or other vapour generating boilers, pressure vessels, containers and pipes [Bundesgesetz über Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für Dampfkessel, Druckbehälter, Versandbehälter und Rohrleitungen (Kesselgesetz)] that only applicants established in Austria may be approved as boiler inspection bodies, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by providing in Paragraph 21(4) of the Federal law on the security measures for steam or other vapour generating boilers, pressure vessels, containers and pipes [Bundesgesetz über Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für Dampfkessel, Druckbehälter, Versandbehälter und Rohrleitungen (Kesselgesetz)] that only applicants established in Austria may be approved as boiler inspection bodies, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austriato pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austriato pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS)

(Case C-283/05) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement - Article 34(2) - Judgment given in default of appearance - Ground for refusal - Meaning of the requirement that it must be ‘possible’ for a defendant in default of appearance to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment - Failure to serve the judgment)

(2006/C 331/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ASML Netherlands BV

Defendant: Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Recognition of a default judgment — Possibility of challenge of the decision by the defaulting defendant — No duly effected service or notification

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that it is ‘possible’ for a defendant to bring proceedings to challenge a default judgment against him only if he was in fact acquainted with its contents, because it was served on him in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence before the courts of the State in which the judgment was given.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-293/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste-water treatment - Province of Varese)

(2006/C 331/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant: Italy (represented by: I. M. Braguglia, Agent, M. Fiorilli, avoccato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Insufficiently stringent treatment of urban waste-water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take measures to ensure that, as from 31 December 1998, urban waste-water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona is subject to more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment or equivalent treatment provided for in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) and (5) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take measures to ensure that, as from 31 December 1998, urban waste-water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona is subject to more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment or equivalent treatment provided for in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) and (5) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH

(Case C-300/05) (1)

(Directive 91/628/EEC - Protection of animals during transport - Watering and feeding intervals, journey times and resting periods - Definition of ‘travel’ (‘Transportdauer’) - Account to be taken of the time taken to load and unload the animals)

(2006/C 331/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant: ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the Annex (Chapter VII, point 48(4)(d)) to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52) — Watering and feeding intervals, journey times and resting periods — Meaning of ‘travel’ (‘Transportdauer’) — Inclusion of the loading time of the animals

Operative part of the judgment

‘Travel’, referred to in point 48(4)(d) of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, is to be interpreted as including the time taken to load and unload the animals.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Compaq Computer International Corporation v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem

(Case C-306/04) (1)

(Customs value - Laptop computers equipped with operating systems software)

(2006/C 331/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Compaq Computer International Corporation

Defendant: Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 32(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value of goods — Portable computers incorporating operating software at the time of their importation

Operative part of the judgment

In order to determine the customs value of imports of computers equipped by the seller with software for one or more operating systems made available by the buyer to the seller free of charge, in accordance with Article 32(1)(b) or (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, the value of the software must be added to the transaction value of the computers if the value of the software has not been included in the price actually paid or payable for those computers.

The same is true when the national authorities accept as the transaction value, in accordance with Community law, the price of a sale other than that made by the Community purchaser. In such cases, ‘buyer’ for the purposes of Article 32(1)(b) or (c) of the Customs Code must be understood to mean the buyer who concluded that other sale.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)) — Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR)

(Case C-315/05) (1)

(Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer - Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 12 - Compulsory statement of the alcoholic strength by volume for certain alcoholic beverages - Alcoholic beverage produced in a Member State other than that in which the distributor is established - ‘Amaro alle erbe’ - Actual alcoholic strength by volume lower than that appearing on the label - Overstepping of the tolerance - Administrative fine - Liability of the distributor)

(2006/C 331/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lidl Italia Srl

Defendant: Comune di Arcole (VR)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Monselice — Interpretation of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29) — Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 12 of the directive — Alcoholic beverage produced and packaged in another Member State having an alcohol content lower than that stated on the label — ‘Amaro alle erbe’

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 3 and 12 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs are to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes it possible for an operator, established in that Member State, which distributes a pre-packaged alcoholic beverage to be delivered as such within the meaning of Article 1 of that directive, produced by an operator established in another Member State, to be held liable for an infringement of that provision, established by a public authority, resulting from the producer's inaccurate statement on the product label of the alcoholic strength by volume of the product and, consequently, to be penalised by an administrative fine, even where, as the mere distributor, it simply markets the product as delivered to it by the producer.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell

(Case C-316/05) (1)

(Community trade mark - Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Infringement or threatened infringement - Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts - Definition of ‘special reasons’ for not issuing such a prohibition - Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibition is complied with - National legislation laying down a general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringement coupled with penalties)

(2006/C 331/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta Domstolen (Sweden)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nokia Corp.

Defendant: Joacim Wärdell

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta Domstolen — Interpretation of Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Obligation of a Community trade mark court which finds that the defendant has infringed or threatens to infringe a Community trade mark, to issue, save where there are specific reasons for not doing so, an order prohibiting him from further infringements or threats to infringe — National legislation already containing a general prohibition of infringement and providing for penalties in the case of further such acts

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark is to be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that the risk of further infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is not obvious or is otherwise merely limited does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark is to be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that the risk of further infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is not obvious or is otherwise merely limited does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts.

| 2. | Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the national law includes a general prohibition of the infringement of Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negligence, does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the national law includes a general prohibition of the infringement of Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negligence, does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts.

| 3. | Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to take such measures, in accordance with its national law, as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if the national law includes a general prohibition of infringement of Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negligence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to take such measures, in accordance with its national law, as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if the national law includes a general prohibition of infringement of Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negligence.

| 4. | Article 98(1) of Regulation 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to take, from among the measures provided for under national law, such as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if those measures could not, under that law, be taken in the case of a corresponding infringement of a national trade mark. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 98(1) of Regulation 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to take, from among the measures provided for under national law, such as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if those measures could not, under that law, be taken in the case of a corresponding infringement of a national trade mark.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-357/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/55/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — A. Brünsteiner GmbH (C-376/05), Autohaus Hilgert GmbH (C-377/05) v Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW)

(Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05) (1)

(Competition - Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles - Block exemption - Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 - Article 5(3) - Termination by the supplier - Reorganisation of the network - Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 - Article 4(1) - Hardcore restrictions - Consequences)

(2006/C 331/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A. Brünsteiner GmbH, Autohaus Hilgert GmbH

Defendant: Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145 p. 25) and of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) — Termination of a distribution agreement by the supplier, due to the need to re-organise the whole of the network because of a change in Community legislation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | The entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector did not, of itself, require the reorganisation of the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements. However, that entry into force may, in the light of the particular nature of the distribution network of each supplier, have required changes that were so significant that they must be regarded as representing a true reorganisation within the meaning of that provision. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine, in the light of all the evidence in the case before them, whether that is the position. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector did not, of itself, require the reorganisation of the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements. However, that entry into force may, in the light of the particular nature of the distribution network of each supplier, have required changes that were so significant that they must be regarded as representing a true reorganisation within the meaning of that provision. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine, in the light of all the evidence in the case before them, whether that is the position.

| 2) | On a proper construction of Article 4 of Regulation No 1400/2002, once the transitional period provided for by Article 10 of that regulation has expired, the block exemption under that regulation did not apply to contracts satisfying the conditions for block exemption under Regulation No 1475/95 which had as their object at least one of the hardcore restrictions listed in Article 4, with the result that all the contractual terms restrictive of competition contained in such contracts were liable to be caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, if the conditions for exemption under Article 81(3) EC were not satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

2)

On a proper construction of Article 4 of Regulation No 1400/2002, once the transitional period provided for by Article 10 of that regulation has expired, the block exemption under that regulation did not apply to contracts satisfying the conditions for block exemption under Regulation No 1475/95 which had as their object at least one of the hardcore restrictions listed in Article 4, with the result that all the contractual terms restrictive of competition contained in such contracts were liable to be caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, if the conditions for exemption under Article 81(3) EC were not satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-390/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - substances that deplete the ozone layer)

(2006/C 331/27)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Defendant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 16(5) and (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances — Failure to determine minimum qualification requirements for the personnel responsible — Failure to report to the Commission on the programmes related to the level of qualification required

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary for determining minimum qualification requirements for the personnel charged with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer, by failing to submit to the Commission, by 31 December 2001, a report with information on the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed and by failing to take all the preventive measures necessary to ensure that fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg is checked annually for leakages, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary for determining minimum qualification requirements for the personnel charged with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer, by failing to submit to the Commission, by 31 December 2001, a report with information on the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed and by failing to take all the preventive measures necessary to ensure that fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg is checked annually for leakages, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-401/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(e) - Scope of the exemption - Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses by an intermediary who does not have the status of dentist or dental technician - Subcontracting to a dental technician)

(2006/C 331/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VDP Dental Laboratory NV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 13, 17 and 28 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Notion of ‘dental prostheses supplied by dentists and dental technicians’ — Supply effected by a taxable person who has subcontracted the manufacture of a dental prosthesis to a dental technician — Right to deduct VAT in the case of supply in another Member State which has excluded an exemption

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(e) 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 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to supplies of dental prostheses effected by an intermediary like the one in question in the main proceedings who does not have the status of dentist or dental technician, but has acquired such prostheses from a dental technician.

---

(1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-452/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste-water treatment)

(2006/C 331/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and F. Simonetti, Agents, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect application of Article 5(4) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by being unable to prove that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all water-treatment plants is at least 75 % for total nitrogen, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by being unable to prove that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all water-treatment plants is at least 75 % for total nitrogen, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.

| 2. | Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48 of 25.2.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-13/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13B(a) - Insurance transactions - Body providing road assistance services)

(2006/C 331/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

Defendants: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 13B(a) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of insurance transactions — Roadside assistance body not falling within the insurance directives but engaging in insurance activities for the purposes of Article 13B(a)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by levying value added tax on services consisting in road assistance in the event of a breakdown, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13B(a) of the 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; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by levying value added tax on services consisting in road assistance in the event of a breakdown, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13B(a) of the 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;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-48/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/90/EC - Facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 331/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ 2002 L 328, p. 17)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-54/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 331/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-78/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 331/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-127/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/65/EC - Distance marketing of financial services - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 331/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-138/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-156/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/87/EC - Credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate - Supplementary supervision - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/36)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 35, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-198/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/94/EC - New passenger cars - Consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions)

(2006/C 331/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to draw up or to transmit to the Commission the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to transmit the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to transmit the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-218/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/87/EC - Supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani, Agent)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 35, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-223/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/51/EC - Company law - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun, Agent)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings (OJ L 178, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-252/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/92/EC - Insurance mediation - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and N. Yerrell, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Forsthoff, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (OJ 2003 L 9, p. 3)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/23

---

Order of the Court of 7 November 2006 — Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos, Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union

(Case C-418/05 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 - Action for annulment - Support scheme in the olive oil sector - Natural and legal persons - Not individually concerned)

(2006/C 331/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos, Antonio Parras Rosa (represented by: J. Vázquez Medina, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and M.F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04 ASAJA and Others v Council, declaring inadmissible the actions for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | The applicants are ordered to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants are ordered to pay the costs;

| 3. | The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Belgium State v Ring Occasions SA, in liquidation, Fortis Bank SA

(Case C-42/05) (1)

(2006/C 331/42)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-66/05) (1)

(2006/C 331/43)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-105/05) (1)

(2006/C 331/44)

Language of the case: Finnish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Allemagne) — F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-151/05) (1)

(2006/C 331/45)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-65/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-68/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/47)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-75/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/48)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-88/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/49)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-90/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/50)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-108/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6

(Case C-118/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/52)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

(Case C-164/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/53)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)   OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Leasys SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7

(Case C-165/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/54)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-216/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-224/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)   OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-235/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/57)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 165,15.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-258/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-318/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/59)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

---

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Werners v Council and Commission

(Case T-373/94) (1)

(Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM 1984 producers - Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

(2006/C 331/60)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: R.W. Werners (Meppel, Netherlands) (represented by: initially H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers, and subsequently E. Pijnacker Hordijk)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert, Agents, and subsequently A.-M. Colaert,) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially T. van Rijn, Agent, assisted by H.J. Rabe, lawyer, and subsequently T. van Rijn)

Re:

Action for compensation pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the fact that he was prevented from marketing milk in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr R.W. Werners to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr R.W. Werners to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 24.12.1994.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Julia Abad Pérez and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case T-304/01) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Animal health - Bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Legislation relating to protection of animal health and public health - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Causal link - Formal defects - Association of traders - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Julia Abad Pérez (El Barraco, Spain) and the 481 other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to the present judgment, Confederación de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos, established in Madrid, Spain) Unió de Pagesos (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, J. Roca Sagarra, M. Pons de Vall Alomar and E. Sagarra Trias, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by J. Carbery and F. Florindo Gijón, and subsequently by F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents, assisted by J. Guerra Fernández, lawyer)

Re:

Action for damages pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for reparation of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants due to acts and omissions on the part of the Council and the Commission, following the appearance of the disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Spain

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it concerns the Unió de Pagesos and la Confederación de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it concerns the Unió de Pagesos and la Confederación de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;

| 3. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 2.3.2002.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2006 — Ter Lembeek v Commission

(Case T-217/02) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted to the Belgian Beaulieu Group - Debt waiver)

(2006/C 331/62)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Ter Lembeek International NV (Wielsbeke, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Vande Maele, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and H. van Vliet, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision 2002/825/EC of 24 April 2002 on the State aid implemented by Belgium for the Beaulieu Group (Ter Lembeek International) (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 60).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council

(Case T-228/02) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Rights of the defence - Statement of reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Action for damages)

(2006/C 331/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran (Auvers-sur-Oise, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer, D. Vaughan QC, and É. de Boissieu, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially by J.E. Collins, and subsequently by R. Caudwell and C. Gibbs, Agents, assisted by S. Moore, Barrister)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 26), of Council Common Position 2002/462/CFSP of 17 June 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 32), and of Council Common Position 2002/340/CFSP of 2 May 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 75), in so far as the applicant appears in the list of persons, groups and entities to which those provisions apply

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded in so far as it seeks annulment of Common Position 2005/936/CFSP of 21 December 2005 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and repealing Common Position 2005/847/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded in so far as it seeks annulment of Common Position 2005/936/CFSP of 21 December 2005 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and repealing Common Position 2005/847/CFSP;

| 2. | Annuls, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Decision 2005/930/EC of 21 December 2005 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/848/EC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Decision 2005/930/EC of 21 December 2005 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/848/EC;

| 3. | Dismisses the claim for damages as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the claim for damages as inadmissible;

| 4. | Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the applicant's costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the applicant's costs;

| 5. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/29

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission

(Case T-237/02) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Procedure for controlling State aid - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Implied refusal - Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination - Intervention - Intervener's claims, pleas and arguments)

(2006/C 331/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Ilmenau, Germany) (represented by: initially G. Schohe and C. Arhold, and subsequently C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, Agents) and Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Schott Glas (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 28 May 2002 refusing the applicant access to documents relating to procedures for controlling State aid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission Decision of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to the investigation procedures in respect of aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission Decision of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to the investigation procedures in respect of aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau. The latter is to bear a quarter of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau. The latter is to bear a quarter of its own costs;

| 4. | Orders Schott Glas, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Schott Glas, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/29

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Austrian banking market - ‘Lombard Club’ - Effect on trade between Member States - Calculation of fines)

(2006/C 331/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer) (Case T-259/02); Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (Vienna) (represented by: C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, lawyers) (Case T-260/02); Anteilsverwaltung BAWAG PSK AG, formerly Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG, (Vienna) (represented by: initially H.-J. Niemeyer and M. von Hinden and then by H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyers) (Case T-261/02); Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich-Wien AG (Vienna) (represented by: H. Wollmann, lawyer) (Case T-262/02); BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG, formerly Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Vienna) (represented by: initially H.-J. Niemeyer and M. von Hinden and then by H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyers) (Case T-263/02); Erste Bank der oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG (Vienna) (represented by: initially W. Kirchhoff, F. Montag, G. Bauer and A. Wegner and then by F. Montag et A. Wegner, lawyers) (Case T 264/02); Österreichische Volksbanken AG (Vienna) and Niederösterreichische Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG (St. Pölten, Austria) (represented by: R. Roniger, A. Ablasser, R. Bierwagen et F. Neumayr, lawyers) (Case T-271/02)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially S. Rating and then by A. Bouquet, Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister, lawyers)

Re:

Primarily, applications for annulment in full or in part of Commission Decision 2004/138/EC of 11 June 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.571/D-1: Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’) (OJ 2004 L 56, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | In Case T-263/02, reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the Österreichische Postsparkasse AG, the predecessor in title of the applicant, by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/138/EC of 11 June 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.571/D-1: Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’) to EUR 3 795 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

In Case T-263/02, reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the Österreichische Postsparkasse AG, the predecessor in title of the applicant, by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/138/EC of 11 June 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.571/D-1: Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’) to EUR 3 795 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

| 3. | In Case T-259/02, dismisses the Commission's counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

3.

In Case T-259/02, dismisses the Commission's counterclaim;

| 4. | In Cases T-260/02 to T-262/02, T-264/02 and T-271/02, orders the applicants to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

In Cases T-260/02 to T-262/02, T-264/02 and T-271/02, orders the applicants to pay the costs;

| 5. | In Case T-259/02, orders the applicant to bear its own costs and 90 % of the Commission's costs. The Commission is to bear 10 % of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

5.

In Case T-259/02, orders the applicant to bear its own costs and 90 % of the Commission's costs. The Commission is to bear 10 % of its own costs;

| 6. | In Case T-263/02, orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

In Case T-263/02, orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.11.2002.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 — Westfalen Gassen Nederland v Commission

(Case T-303/02) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Dutch market for industrial and medical gases - Price fixing - Proof of participation in the cartel - Proof of distancing - Principles of non-discrimination and proportionality - Calculation of fines)

(2006/C 331/66)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV (Deventer, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Essers and M. Custers, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, Agent)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/207/EC of 24 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (case COMP/E 3/36.700 — Industrial and medical gases) (OJ 2003 L 84, p. 1) and, alternatively, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the Commission and orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the Commission and orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 17.12.2002.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM — Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame)

(Joined Cases T-81/03, T-82/03 and T-103/03) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community figurative marks VENADO with frame, VENADO and VENADO ESPECIAL - Earlier Community figurative marks representing a deer's head facing forward in a circle - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 331/67)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister AG (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: C. Drzymalla, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Licorera Zacapaneca SA (Santa Cruz, Guatemala) (represented by: L. Corno Caparrós and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers)

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/2002-1 and Case R 382/2002-1) and 14 January 2003 (Case R 407/2002-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Licorera Zacapaneca SA and Mast-Jägermeister AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/2002-1 and Case R 382/2002-1) and of 14 January 2003 (Case R 407/2002-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/2002-1 and Case R 382/2002-1) and of 14 January 2003 (Case R 407/2002-1);

| 2. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

| 3. | Orders the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/31

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociación de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission

(Case T-95/03) (1)

(State aid - Legislation providing for urgent measures to promote competition in the sector for the retail supply of petroleum products - Decision not to raise any objections - Admissibility - Legal persons - Measure of individual concern to them - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons - Duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Reasonable period of time)

(2006/C 331/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (Madrid, Spain) and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Jiménez Laiglesia, M. Delgado Echevarría and R. Ortega Bueno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, Agent, and J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially by E. Braquehais Conesa, and subsequently by M. Muñoz Pérez, Agents) and Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) (Madrid) (represented by J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster and J. Passás Ogallar, lawyers),

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4355 final of 13 November 2002 concerning Spanish legislation on the opening of service stations by hypermarkets

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear three quarters of their own costs, three quarters of those incurred by the Commission and all of the costs incurred by the Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear three quarters of their own costs, three quarters of those incurred by the Commission and all of the costs incurred by the Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear a quarter of its own costs and a quarter of those incurred by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear a quarter of its own costs and a quarter of those incurred by the applicants;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/31

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — É.R. and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-138/03) (1)

(Common Agricultural Policy - Animal health - Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (‘mad cow disease’) - New variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Liability of the Community in the absence of wrongful conduct on the part of its bodies - Loss - Causation - Procedural defects - Parallel proceedings before national courts - Limitation - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: É.R., O.O., J.R., A.R., B.P.R. (Vaulx-en-Velin, France); T.D., J.D., D.D., V.D. (Palaiseau, France); D.E., É.E. (Ozoir-la-Ferrière; France); C.R. (Vichy, France); H.R., M.S.R., I.R., B.R., M.R. (Pau, France); and C.S. (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Honnorat, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (initially represented by: M. Balta and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and later by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (initially represented by: D. Booss and G. Berscheid, and later by: G. Berscheid and T. van Rijn, Agents)

Re:

Actions for damages pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a consequence of the infection and subsequent death of members of their families who suffered from a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which was linked to the outbreak and spread in Europe of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for which the Council and the Commission are responsible.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application as inadmissible in relation to É.R., O.O., J.R., A.R. and B.P.R.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application as inadmissible in relation to É.R., O.O., J.R., A.R. and B.P.R.;

| 2. | Dismisses the application as unfounded as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application as unfounded as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the applicants to pay three-quarters of the costs and the Council and the Commission to pay one-quarter of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicants to pay three-quarters of the costs and the Council and the Commission to pay one-quarter of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 5.7.2003. This case was previously cited as U. and Others v Council and Commission.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociaciόn de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federaciόn Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission

(Case T-146/03) (1)

(State aid - Spanish law providing for measures in favour of the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices - Formal examination procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC - Decision declaring that certain measures did not constitute aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing to bring proceedings - Duty to state reasons)

(2006/C 331/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Asociaciόn de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autόnoma de Madrid (Madrid, Spain) and Federaciόn Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Ortega Bueno and M. Delgado Echevarría, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: originally by J.L. Buendía Sierra, and subsequently by J.R. Vidal Puig)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais Conesa, lawyer, and M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/293/EC of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices (OJ 2003 L 111, p. 24)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that Article 1 of Commission Decision of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices is annulled in so far that it finds that the measures to support agricultural cooperatives provided for by Royal Decree Law 10/2000 de medidas urgentes de apoyo a los sectores agrario, pesquero y del transporte (Decree Law on emergency support for agriculture, fisheries and transport) do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Article 1 of Commission Decision of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices is annulled in so far that it finds that the measures to support agricultural cooperatives provided for by Royal Decree Law 10/2000 de medidas urgentes de apoyo a los sectores agrario, pesquero y del transporte (Decree Law on emergency support for agriculture, fisheries and transport) do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants.

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, of 19.7.2003.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — FNCBV and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03) (1)

(Competition - Article 81(1) EC - Beef and veal - Suspension of imports - Fixing of a trade union price scale - Regulation No 26 - Associations of undertakings - Restriction of competition - Trade union action - Affecting of trade between Member States - Duty to state reasons - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating and mitigating circumstances - Non-aggregation of penalties - Rights of the defence)

(2006/C 331/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: in Case T-217/03, Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Collin, M. Ponsard and N. Decker, lawyers), and in Case T-245/03, Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA) (Paris); Fédération nationale bovine (FNB) (Paris); Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL) (Paris); and Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) (Paris) (represented by: B. Neouze and V. Ledoux, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: French Republic (represented by: initially G. de Bergues, F. Million and R. Abraham, subsequently G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and S. Ramet, lawyers)

Re:

Applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 — French beef) (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12) and, in the alternative, for cancellation or reduction of the fines thereby imposed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande, the applicant in Case T-217/03, at EUR 360 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande, the applicant in Case T-217/03, at EUR 360 000;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in Case T-245/03 at EUR 9 000 000 for the Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles, EUR 1 080 000 for the Fédération nationale bovine, EUR 1 080 000 for the Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait and EUR 450 000 for the Jeunes agriculteurs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in Case T-245/03 at EUR 9 000 000 for the Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles, EUR 1 080 000 for the Fédération nationale bovine, EUR 1 080 000 for the Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait and EUR 450 000 for the Jeunes agriculteurs;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 4. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs incurred in the main proceedings, together with three-quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in those proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs incurred in the main proceedings, together with three-quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in those proceedings;

| 5. | Orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs incurred in the main proceedings and to pay all costs relating to the applications for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs incurred in the main proceedings and to pay all costs relating to the applications for interim measures;

| 6. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament

(Case T-416/03) (1)

(Officials - Staff report - Action for annulment - No consultation of the previous immediate superior - Statement of reasons - Action for compensation - Late establishment - Non-material damage - Admissibility)

(2006/C 331/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. de Wachter and M. Mustapha Pacha, Agents)

Re:

In the first place, annulment of the staff report relating to the applicant, an official in Grade A 3 of the European Parliament, for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 and, second, application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by reason both of alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission

(Case T-47/04) (1)

(Officials - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal procedure)

(2006/C 331/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alex Milbert (Hesperange, Luxembourg), Saturnino Durán Vidal (Brussels, Belgium), Roland Hanff (Dudelange, Luxembourg), Maria Anita Nuotio (Brussels), Paraskevi Papageorgiou (Brussels), Andrea Ranschaert (Drongen, Belgium), Reinhard Rieder (Brussels) and Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, then F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)

Re:

Primarily, application for annulment of the 2001-2002 appraisal procedure in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, annulment of the applicants' career development reports in respect of that procedure

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions adopting the career development reports of Mr Terezakis and Ms Papageorgiou for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions adopting the career development reports of Mr Terezakis and Ms Papageorgiou for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those of Mr Terezakis and Ms Papageorgiou; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those of Mr Terezakis and Ms Papageorgiou;

| 4. | Orders Mr Milbert, Mr Durán Vidal, Mr Hanff, Mr Rieder, Ms Nuotio and Ms Ranschaert to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Milbert, Mr Durán Vidal, Mr Hanff, Mr Rieder, Ms Nuotio and Ms Ranschaert to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission

(Case T-155/04) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Complaint - Rejection)

(2006/C 331/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, Rome (Italy) (represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Oliver and L. Visaggio, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, L. Visaggio and F. Amato, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne (Eurocontrol) (European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation) (represented by F. Montag and T. Wessely, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment or amendment of the Commission decision of 12 February 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint relating to alleged breach by Eurocontrol of the provisions of the EC Treaty in the field of competition)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Branco v Commission

(Case T-162/04) (1)

(European Social Fund (ESF) - Reduction of financial assistance - Subcontracting - Reasonable time)

(2006/C 331/75)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Eugénio Branco, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Belchior, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 August 2003 reducing the assistance of the European Social Fund (ESF) and, therefore, rejecting the application for payment of the balance of the assistance from the ESF, initially approved for operational program 87 03 01 P1.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-282/04) (1)

(EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Financial corrections - Rural development - Aid to the least well-off)

(2006/C 331/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35) in as far as it concerns certain expenditure made by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/35

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2006 — Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO)

(Case T-310/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FERRO - Earlier national word mark FERRERO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Similarity of goods)

(2006/C 331/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany), allowed to replace Ferrero OHG mbH (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Cornu SA Fontain (Fontain, France) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG and Cornu SA Fontain.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay its own costs, the whole of the costs relating to the procedural issue concerning its substitution for Ferrero OHG mbH, and half of the costs incurred by the intervener; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay its own costs, the whole of the costs relating to the procedural issue concerning its substitution for Ferrero OHG mbH, and half of the costs incurred by the intervener;

| 3. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs and half of those incurred by the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs and half of those incurred by the intervener.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/35

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Germany v Commission

(Joined Cases T-314/04 and T-414/04) (1)

(European Regional Development Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Action for annulment - Act against which proceedings can be brought - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C.-D. Quassowski, Agent, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and L. Flynn, Agents)

Re:

Actions for annulment of the decisions contained in two letters of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the Commission of 17 May and 9 August 2004 sent to the applicant concerning reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund granted for the Objective 2 Programme 1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia and the Operational Programme Resider II North Rhine-Westphalia 1994-1999, and the refusal in consequence to pay the applicant the balances of EUR 5 488 569,24 and EUR 2 268 988,33 respectively.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and half of those incurred by the applicant. The applicant is to bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and half of those incurred by the applicant. The applicant is to bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — J v Commission

(Case T-379/04) (1)

(Remuneration - Expatriation allowance and installation allowance - Conditions laid down in Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - ‘Work done for another State’ - Recovery of sums paid but not due)

(2006/C 331/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: J (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Forte, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 June 2004 expressly rejecting the applicant's complaints, and of the Commission's decision of 31 October 2003 refusing her the expatriation allowance and the installation allowance provided for in Articles 4 and 5, respectively, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, and of the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 demanding repayment of the sums received in that respect.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders the parties each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission

(Case T-382/04) (1)

(Customs union - Rice paper from Vietnam - Remission of import duties - Equitable relief - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Error of the customs authority - Definition of manifest negligence - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Principle of proportionality)

(2006/C 331/80)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV (Landgraaf, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Bie, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding the remission of import duties in a particular case to be unjustified

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/37

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Gagliardi v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (MANŪ MANU MANU)

(Case T-392/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark MANŪ MANU MANU - Earlier national word mark MANOU - Refusal to register - Scope and correction of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Restriction of the application for registration - Partial withdrawal of the opposition - Legal interest in bringing opposition proceedings - Proof of use of the earlier mark - Scope of the proof of use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 331/81)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Salvatore Gagliardi (Monsummano Terme, Italy) (represented by: A. Schmitt, P. Biavati, S. Corona, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Buffolo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Rojahn, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Salvatore Gagliardi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4) in so far as it refuses the application for registration of the mark MANŪ MANU MANU, first, for ‘footwear’ and ‘headgear’ in Class 25 and second, for goods in Classes 18 and 24; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4) in so far as it refuses the application for registration of the mark MANŪ MANU MANU, first, for ‘footwear’ and ‘headgear’ in Class 25 and second, for goods in Classes 18 and 24;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and a third of those incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and a third of those incurred by the applicant;

| 4. | Orders the applicant, Salvatore Gagliardi, to bear two thirds of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the applicant, Salvatore Gagliardi, to bear two thirds of its own costs;

| 5. | Orders the intervener, Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the intervener, Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/37

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance Chamber of 23 November 2006 — Lavagnoli v Commission

(Case T-422/04) (1)

(Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Refusal of promotion - Allocation of promotion points)

(2006/C 331/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luciano Lavagnoli (Berchem, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti and subsequently by F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)

Re:

Annulment, first, of the list of officials promoted in 2003 in so far as the name of the applicant is not contained therein and, second, in the alternative, of the decision allocating promotion points for 2003, as regards the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45 of 19.2.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament

(Case T-424/04) (1)

(Officials - Staff report - Action for annulment - No consultation of the previous immediate superior - Statement of reasons - Action for compensation - Late establishment - Non-material damage - Admissibility)

(2006/C 331/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha Pacha and J. de Wachter, Agents)

Re:

In the first place, annulment of the staff report relating to the applicant, an official in Grade A 3 of the European Parliament, for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002 and, second, application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by reason both of the alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Commission v Parthenon

(Case T-7/05) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration - Recovery of sums advanced)

(2006/C 331/84)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion (Aigio, Greece) (represented by: A. Masoulas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought pursuant to Article 238 EC for the recovery of sums advanced within the framework of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, terminated by the Commission for failure by the defendant to perform its contractual obligations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion, to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 154 383,53, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus 2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final discharge; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion, to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 154 383,53, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus 2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final discharge;

| 2. | Dismisses the application as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the defendant, and orders the defendant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the defendant, and orders the defendant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and Others

(Joined Cases T-35/05, T-61/05, T-107/05, T-108/05 and T-139/05) (1)

(Officials - Pensions - Application of the weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence - Transitional arrangements set up by the regulation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 - Act adversely affecting an official - Objection of illegality)

(2006/C 331/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

In Case T-35/05,

Applicants: Elisabeth Agne-Dapper (Schoorl, Netherlands) and the other former officials of the Commission of the European Communities whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

In Case T-61/05,

Applicants: Cornelius Rozemeijer (Alkmaar, Netherlands), Gaston Vaesken (Saint-Mandrier, France) and Pierrette Vaesken (Sanary-sur-Mer, France) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

In Case T-107/05,

Applicant: François Muller (Strasbourg, France) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and M. Bavendamm, Agents)

In Case T-108/05,

Applicant: Suzy Frederic-Leemans (Lahas, France) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Bermejo Garde and E. Fierro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

In Case T-139/05,

Applicants: Charlotte Becker (Menton, France), Seamus Killeen (Dublin, Ireland), Robert Payne (Dublin, Ireland), Paul Van Raij (Overeen, Netherlands), Wilhelmus Van Miltenburg (Huizen, Netherlands) and Deirdre Gallagher (Dublin, Ireland) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha-Pascha, L. Knudsen and K. Zejdova, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

Re:

In essence, annulment of the applicants' pension statements — and, in one case only, of the payslip of an applicant assigned to non-active status — of May 2004, in so far as those pension statements and payslips apply for the first time a weighting calculated illegally by reference to the cost of living in the applicants' respective countries of residence, and no longer in relation to the cost of living in the capital of each of those countries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/39

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Camper v OHIM — JC (BROTHERS by CAMPER)

(Case T-43/05) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark BROTHERS by CAMPER - Earlier national figurative trade marks BROTHERS - Inadmissibility - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 331/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Camper, SL, (Inca, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: JC AB, (Mölnlycke, Sweden), (represented by P. Hedberg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2004 (Case R 170/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between JC AB and Camper SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

| 3. | Orders the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/40

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Campoli v Commission

(Case T-135/05) (1)

(Officials - Pensions - Weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence - Transitional arrangements set up by the new Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 - Act adversely affecting an official - Objection of illegality - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Equal treatment)

(2006/C 331/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franco Campoli (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

Re:

In essence, annulment of the applicant's pension statements of May to July 2004 in so far as they apply for the first time a weighting calculated illegally by reference to the average cost of living in the applicant's country of residence, and no longer in relation to the cost of living in the capital of that country.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/40

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Heus v Commission

(Case T-173/05) (1)

(Officials - Access to an internal competition - Competition notice - Condition relating to length of service - Action for annulment - Principle of non-discrimination)

(2006/C 331/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Martine Heus (Anderlecht, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Principally, application for annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to competition COM/PC/04.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/40

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza v Commission

(Case T-225/02) (1)

(European Social Fund - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Withdrawal of financial aid - Action for annulment - Directly concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/89)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza (Zaragoza, Speain) (represented by: initially A. Sánchez-Rubio García, then A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Escobar Guerrero and L. Flynn, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2000) 2621 of 29 December 2000 relating to the withdrawal of aid which was allocated by the European Social Fund (ESF) by application of Decision C (91) 2852 of 19 December 1991 adopting the Community initiative ‘Euroform’ for Spain (P.O. 913051ES8) and ESF funds which the Spanish authorities allocated to the Cámara de Comercio e Industria (Chamber of Commerce), Zaragoza, for the ‘Tricoin’ project (ref.: EUR-82), for the implementation of which the company Copy Aragón de Zaragoza was responsible.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/41

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission

(Case T-434/04) (1)

(Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Refusal of promotion - Award of promotion points - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alex Milbert (Hesperange, Luxembourg), Imre Czigàny (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium), José Manuel De la Cruz Gonzalez (Brussels, Belgium), Viviane Deveen (Overijse, Belgium), Mohammad Reza Fardoom (Roodt-sur-Syre, Luxembourg), Laura Gnemmi (Hünsdorf, Luxembourg), Marie-José Reinard (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Vassilios Stergiou (Kraainem, Belgium) and Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, then F. Frabetti)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the list of officials promoted under the 2003 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not contain the applicants' names, and, incidentally, the formal measures leading to that decision and, secondly, in the alternative, for annulment of the allocation of promotion points made under the 2003 procedure in relation to the applicants

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/41

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

(Case T-436/04) (1)

(Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Refusal of promotion - Award of promotion points - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, then F. Frabetti)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the list of officials promoted to a higher grade under the 2003 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not contain the applicant's name, and, incidentally, the formal measures leading to that decision and, secondly, in the alternative, for annulment of the allocation of promotion points made under the 2003 procedure in relation to the applicant

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Jiménez Martínez v Commission

(Case T-115/05) (1)

(Officials - Invalidity - Invalidity Committee - Preparatory measure - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Irregularity in the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Juan Jiménez Martínez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Hermann, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the Invalidity Committee's decisions of 21 April and 22 July 2004 and, secondly, for damages as compensation for loss allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Weber v Commission

(Case T-290/05) (1)

(Access to documents of the Community institutions - Refusal - Application initiating proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 331/93)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Friedrich Weber (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: W. Declair, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Ladenburger, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Secretariat-General of the Commission of 27 May 2005, rejecting the request for access by the applicant to a letter sent by the Directorate General for Competition to the Federal German Government concerning State aid proceedings.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER)

(Case T-366/05) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BUDWEISER - Earlier international word marks and figurative marks BUDWEISER and BUDWEISER BUDVAR - Refusal to register - Restriction of the goods covered - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2006/C 331/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Anheuser-Busch (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, B. Goebel, A. Renck and A. Pohlmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Česke Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2005 (Case R 514/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, and Anheuser Busch, Inc.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Anheuser Busch, Inc., shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Anheuser Busch, Inc., shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik.

---

(1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — MMT v Commission

(Case T-392/05) (1)

(Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Objection of inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MMT Mecklenburg-Strelitzer Montage- und Tiefbau GmbH (Neustrelitz, Germany) (represented by: R.-J. Kurschus, M. Zimmermann, M. Grehsin and C. Kupke, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/595/EC of 5 March 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the sale and export of products from the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (OJ 2003 L 202 p. 15) to the extent that the decision classifies as unlawful State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC the financial assistance envisaged by the guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for shared offices on the territory of countries which are official candidates for accession to the European Union.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-14/06) (1)

(Community Trade Mark - Procedural issues - Plea of inadmissibility - Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Time-limit for bringing an action)

(2006/C 331/96)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: K-Swiss, Inc. (West Lake Village, California, United States) (represented by: H. Hübner, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1), concerning registration of a mark in the form of five parallel stripes placed on the lateral part of a representation of a shoe as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/44

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Huta Częstochowa v Commission

(Case T-288/06 R)

(Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - State aid - Admissibility)

(2006/C 331/97)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Huta Częstochowa S.A. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C.Sadkowski and D. Salajewski, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Article 3 of the Commission decision of 5 July 2005 cocerning State aid granted to the steel producer Huta Częstochowa S.A in Case No C 20/04, and for the joinder of that application with the application for suspension of operation brought by ISD Polska sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/44

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2006 — Latino v Commission

(Case T-409/04) (1)

(2006/C 331/98)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/44

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2006 — Dairo Air Services v Commission

(Case T-283/06 R)

(2006/C 331/99)

Language of the case: French

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

---

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/45

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission

(Case F-17/05) (1)

(Officials - Sick leave - Placing on compulsory sick leave)

(2006/C 331/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K.H. Hagenaar, subsequently O. Martins and M. Boury, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, subsequently D. Martin, Agents, and by C. Falmagne, lawyer)

Re:

First, a declaration that the Commission's decision placing the applicant on compulsory sick leave is non-existent, together with an order that the Commission put an end to the alleged blatantly unlawful conduct of which the applicant considers himself to be the victim, and, second, an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 13 July 2004 forbidding Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho access to Commission buildings; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 13 July 2004 forbidding Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho access to Commission buildings;

| 2. | annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 22 September 2004 extending the applicant's sick leave by six months and the subsequent extension of that sick leave; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 22 September 2004 extending the applicant's sick leave by six months and the subsequent extension of that sick leave;

| 3. | dismisses the remainder of the forms of order sought in the application; |
| --- | --- |

3.

dismisses the remainder of the forms of order sought in the application;

| 4. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and two-thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and two-thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-145/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/45

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Neophytou v Commission

(Case F-22/05) (1)

(Officials - Open competition - Selection Board - Composition - Equal treatment - Conditions for admission)

(2006/C 331/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neophytos Neophytou (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the selection board EPSO/A/1/03 for the constitution of a reserve list of deputy administrators (A8) of Cypriot nationality not to include the applicant on the reserve list drawn up following that competition

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-165/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/46

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Caldarone v Commission

(Case F-74/05) (1)

(Officials - Appraisal - Career Development Report - 2003 appraisal procedure - Obligation to state reasons for report - Annulment of the report - Claim for damages)

(2006/C 331/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maurizio Caldarone (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report for the 2003 appraisal procedure

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision adopting Mr Caldarone's Career Development Report for the period from 1 January to 21 August 2003; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision adopting Mr Caldarone's Career Development Report for the period from 1 January to 21 August 2003;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-293/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Communities by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/46

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Balabanis and Le Dour

(Case F-77/05) (1)

(Officials - Promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Amendment to the Staff Regulations - Temporal application - 2004 promotion procedure - Non-inclusion in the list of officials eligible for promotion - Taking into account the probationary period when calculating the minimum length of service of two years )

(2006/C 331/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Panagiotis Balabanis (Brussels, Belgium), Olivier Le Dour (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Martin M., S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decision not to include the applicants' names in the list of officials eligible for promotion in the 2004 procedure and of the decisions not to promote them in that procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 14 September 2004 in which the Commission of the European Communities refused to consider Messrs Balabanis and Le Dour eligible for promotion in the 2004 promotion procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 14 September 2004 in which the Commission of the European Communities refused to consider Messrs Balabanis and Le Dour eligible for promotion in the 2004 promotion procedure.

| 2. | Annuls the decision of 30 November 2004 in which the Commission of the European Communities did not promote Messrs Balabanis and Le Dour in the 2004 promotion procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of 30 November 2004 in which the Commission of the European Communities did not promote Messrs Balabanis and Le Dour in the 2004 promotion procedure.

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 271 of 29.10.2005, p. 20 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-305/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Kubanksi v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-88/05) (1)

(Temporary staff - Article 5(3)(a) of the Staff Regulations - Article 82(2) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities - Withdrawal of the decision to employ the applicant as a member of the temporary staff in grade B*4 - Level of qualifications required to be employed in grade B* - New contract staff contract)

(2006/C 331/104)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gabrielle Kubanksi (Leggiuno, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi and D. Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decision revoking the decision to employ the applicant as a member of the temporary staff in grade B*4

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 16 December 2004 terminating the temporary staff contract signed on 4 October 2004 by Ms Kubanski; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 16 December 2004 terminating the temporary staff contract signed on 4 October 2004 by Ms Kubanski;

| 2. | dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 12.11.2005, p. 20 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-353/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Ioannis Economidis v Commission.

(Case F-122/05) (1)

(Officials - Appointment - Post of Head of Unit - Rejection of applicant's candidature - Manifest error of assessment)

(2006/C 331/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-St-Étienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decisions of the Commission rejecting the applicant's candidature for the post of Head of Unit RTD.F.5 — Biotechnology and applied genomics and appointing Mr H. to that post.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 23 December 2004 appointing Mr H. to the post of Head of Unit of Biotechnology and applied genomics unit and, consequently, rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 23 December 2004 appointing Mr H. to the post of Head of Unit of Biotechnology and applied genomics unit and, consequently, rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post;

| 2. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — André v Commission

(Case F-10/06) (1)

(Officials - Auxiliary staff - Contract Conference interpreter - Conditions for payment of the flat-rate travel allowance)

(2006/C 331/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniel André (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Jourdan, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission decision of 6 October 2005 refusing to pay the applicant, in respect of services provided for and at the request of the Court of Justice on 12 and 13 January 2005, the flat-rate allowance laid down by Article 7 of the Agreement on working conditions and financial terms for contract conference interpreters recruited by the institutions of the European Union and, secondly, an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, dated 8 March 2005, refusing Mr André the flat-rate travel allowance in respect of services provided on 12 and 13 January 2005 for the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, dated 8 March 2005, refusing Mr André the flat-rate travel allowance in respect of services provided on 12 and 13 January 2005 for the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg;

| 2. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the applicant that allowance, plus default interest at a rate two points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question, from 14 February 2005; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the applicant that allowance, plus default interest at a rate two points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question, from 14 February 2005;

| 3. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/48

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Klopfer v Commission

(Case F-118/05) (1)

(Officials - Open competition - Non-admission to tests - Necessary professional experience - Part-time work)

(2006/C 331/107)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Klopfer (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: W. Daniels and E. Pätzel, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority not to admit the applicant to the tests in competition EPSO/B/11/03 on the ground of insufficient professional experience, since his part-time work was taken into account only after a weighting was applied.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | The parties are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/48

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2006 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-37/06) (1)

(Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Occupational illness - Act adversely affecting an official - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/108)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's request that his illness should be acknowledged to be an occupational illness and, second, an application for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 53.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/49

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Aimi and Others v Commission

(Case F-47/06) (1)

(Officials - Promotion - Career - Version of the Staff Regulations applicable on 1 May 2004 - Transition to a new career structure - Measure of general application - Equal treatment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

(2006/C 331/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Nicola Aimi (Evere, Belgium) and Others (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the individual decisions rejecting the applicants' requests that the Appointing Authority adopt transitional measures in order to guarantee, in the context of the 2005 and subsequent promotion exercises, equal treatment and their acquired rights

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/49

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2006 — Suhadolnik v Court of Justice

(Case F-78/06) (1)

(Officials - Recruitment - Appointment - Probationary period - Probationer - Establishment - Grading by grade and step - Transitional measures of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Admissibility the action)

(2006/C 331/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Simona Suhadolnik (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume, and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: M. Schauss, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio and I. Sulce, Agents)

Re:

Firstly, annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 22 July 2005 establishing the applicant and fixing her grade in accordance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and her step in accordance with the new version of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and, secondly, a request for reclassification and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 17.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/50

---

Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 December 2006 — Dálnoky v Commission

(Case F-120/06 R)

(Application for interim measures - Notice of competition - Admissibility of main action - Urgency - None)

(2006/C 331/111)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Noémi Dálnoky (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Horváth, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Re:

Suspension of the operation of the tests in Open Competition EPSO/AD/47/06 pending judgment on the application for annulment of the notice of that competition published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 June 2006 (OJ 2006 C 145 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/50

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 December 2006 — Pantalis v Commission

(Case F-88/06) (1)

(2006/C 331/112)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register further to an amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 44.

---

III Notices

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/51

---

(2006/C 331/113)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

Past publications

OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

OJ C 281, 18.11.2006

OJ C 261, 28.10.2006

OJ C 249, 14.10.2006

OJ C 237, 30.9.2006

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---