# Official Journal C 96/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 96 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5028 April 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 96

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5028 April 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2007/C 096/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Justice

2007/C 096/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2007/C 096/02 | Case C-470/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus, Finland) — AGM-COS.MET Srl v Suomen valtio, Tarmo Lehtinen (Directive 98/37/EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Machinery presumed to comply with Directive 98/37/EC — Criticism expressed publicly by a State official) | 2 |
| 2007/C 096/03 | Case C-64/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Fishing licences — Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 — Vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest — Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina) | 3 |
| 2007/C 096/04 | Case C-134/04: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 distributing catch quotas among Member States — Act of Accession of Spain — End of the transitional period — Requirement of relative stability — Principle of non-discrimination — New fishing opportunities) | 3 |
| 2007/C 096/05 | Case C-195/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public supply contract for catering equipment — Article 28 EC — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Principle of non-discrimination — Obligation of transparency) | 3 |
| 2007/C 096/06 | Case C-347/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Rewe Zentralfinanz eG, as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Immediate offsetting of losses incurred by parent companies — Losses stemming from write-downs to the book value of shareholdings in subsidiaries established in other Member States) | 4 |
| 2007/C 096/07 | Case C-348/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Swingward Ltd, and Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd v Swingward Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Eli Lilly and Co. v Dowelhurst Ltd (Industrial and commercial property — Trade mark rights — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel imports — Repackaging of the product bearing the trade mark) | 4 |
| 2007/C 096/08 | Case C-437/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities — Buildings leased by the Communities — Region of Brussels Capital — Tax on owners) | 6 |
| 2007/C 096/09 | Case C-523/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion by a Member State of a bilateral air transport agreement with the United States of America — Right of establishment — Secondary law governing the internal market in air transport — External competence of the Community) | 6 |
| 2007/C 096/10 | Case C-111/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Aktiebolaget NN v Skatteverket (Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of goods — Article 8(1)(a) — Fibre-optic cable between two Member States running in part outside Community territory — Tax jurisdiction of each Member State limited to the length of cable installed on its territory — Non-taxation of the part lying in the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf or on the seabed) | 7 |
| 2007/C 096/11 | Case C-135/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste management — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC) | 8 |
| 2007/C 096/12 | Case C-219/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Treatment of urban waste water — Agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts and certain municipalities of La Ribera — Discharge in a sensitive area without treatment) | 8 |
| 2007/C 096/13 | Case C-273/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Celltech R&D Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for word mark CELLTECH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character) | 9 |
| 2007/C 096/14 | Case C-282/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges) | 9 |
| 2007/C 096/15 | Case C-295/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo, Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales (ASEMFO) v Transformación Agraria SA, Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 86(1) EC — No independent effect — Factors permitting material which enables the Court to give a useful answer to the questions referred — Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC — National legislation enabling a public undertaking to perform operations on the direct instructions of the public authorities without being subject to the general rules for the award of public procurement contracts — Internal management structure — Conditions — The public authority must exercise over a distinct entity a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments — The distinct entity must carry out the essential part of its activities with the public authority or authorities which control it) | 10 |
| 2007/C 096/16 | Case C-356/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General, Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) (Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Injuries to the passengers of a vehicle — Part of a vehicle not adapted for the carriage of seated passengers) | 10 |
| 2007/C 096/17 | Case C-381/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, (Belgium)) — De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Identifying a competitor or the goods or services offered by a competitor — Goods or services satisfying the same needs or with the same purpose — Reference to designations of origin) | 11 |
| 2007/C 096/18 | Case C-383/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Raffaele Talotta v Belgium State (Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Non-resident taxpayer carrying out a self-employed activity — Setting of minimum tax bases applicable only to non-resident taxpayers — Justified by requirements of general interest — Effectiveness of fiscal supervision — Not justified) | 12 |
| 2007/C 096/19 | Case C-392/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — (Greece)) — Georgios Alevizos v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Freedom of movement for workers — Directive 83/183/EEC — Article 6 — Definitive import into one Member State of a private vehicle from another Member State — Member of the armed forces of one Member State posted temporarily to another Member State for official reasons — Concept of normal residence) | 12 |
| 2007/C 096/20 | Case C-412/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 43(2) and (3) — Genuine use — New plea — Word mark TRAVATAN — Opposition by proprietor of earlier national trade mark TRIVASTAN) | 13 |
| 2007/C 096/21 | Case C-423/05: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste management — Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites) | 13 |
| 2007/C 096/22 | Case C-444/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon — Greece) — Aikaterini Stamatelaki v NPDD Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (OAEE) (Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Reimbursement of the cost of treatment in private hospitals — Justification for, and proportionality of, the exclusion) | 14 |
| 2007/C 096/23 | Case C-455/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(2) — Concept of assumption of obligations — Assumption of the obligation to renovate a property — Refusal of exemption) | 14 |
| 2007/C 096/24 | Case C-15/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Closure of Community financial assistance — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Local or regional entity — Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity — Direct concern) | 15 |
| 2007/C 096/25 | Case C-63/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansц ministerijos (Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Article 27(1)(f) — Alcohol contained in chocolate products — Exemption from the harmonised excise duty) | 15 |
| 2007/C 096/26 | Case C-72/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/9/EC — Asylum policy — Asylum seekers — Reception — Minimum standards — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) | 16 |
| 2007/C 096/27 | Case C-141/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/65/EC — Financial services — Distance marketing — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) | 16 |
| 2007/C 096/28 | Case C-229/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate) | 17 |
| 2007/C 096/29 | Case C-264/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 16(3) — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Measures necessary) | 17 |
| 2007/C 096/30 | Case C-313/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) | 18 |
| 2007/C 096/31 | Case C-320/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/14/EC — Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Failure to implement within the period prescribed) | 18 |
| 2007/C 096/32 | Case C-388/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/96/EC — Restructuring of the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity — Failure to implement within the period prescribed) | 19 |
| 2007/C 096/33 | Case C-202/05: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — United Kingdom) — Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Patent law — Medicinal products — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Concept of product — Concept of combination of active ingredients) | 19 |
| 2007/C 096/34 | Case C-395/05: Order of the Court of 6 March 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio, Alessandro D'Antoni, Rodolfo Ramieri (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Rules of competition applicable to undertakings — Interpretation of Articles 31 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties) | 20 |
| 2007/C 096/35 | Case C-397/05: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 May 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Maria Grazia di Maggio, Salvatore Buccola (First paragraph of Article 104(3)of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties) | 20 |
| 2007/C 096/36 | Case C-466/05: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Damonte (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties) | 21 |
| 2007/C 096/37 | Case C-150/06 P: Order of the Court of 13 March 2007 — Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica SA, v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland (Appeal — Directive 67/548/EEC — Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Breach of the right to an effective legal remedy — Action for damages — Appeal clearly unfounded) | 21 |
| 2007/C 096/38 | Case C-168/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Regional Administrative Court, Łódź) — Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — First and Sixth VAT Directives — Facts pre-dating the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union — Jurisdiction of the Court) | 22 |
| 2007/C 096/39 | Case C-188/06 P: Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Concentrations between undertakings — Electricity distribution market — Decisions to initiate and close proceedings) | 22 |
| 2007/C 096/40 | Case C-189/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 April 2007 — TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA v GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Public contracts for services — Call for tenders relating to a multiple framework contract for the short term recruitment of experts responsible for providing technical assistance to third countries — Rejection of the appellants' tender — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 23 |
| 2007/C 096/41 | Case C-191/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Aniello Gallo, Gianluca Damonte (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties) | 23 |
| 2007/C 096/42 | Case C-196/06 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2007 — Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), CompUSA Management Co (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of a figurative mark — Opposition of the proprietor of an earlier national figurative mark — Likelihood of confusion — None — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the conflicting trade marks) | 24 |
| 2007/C 096/43 | Case C-237/06 P: Order of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Staff cases — Decision to close an OLAF investigation — Allegations of fraud made by an official — Locus standi of the official) | 24 |
| 2007/C 096/44 | Case C-245/06 P: Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Saiwa SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for a figurative mark including the word element SELEZIONE ORO Barilla — Opposition by the holder of the national and international trade mark ORO and the national trade mark ORO SAIWA — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 25 |
| 2007/C 096/45 | Case C-276/06: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Verviers (Belgium)) — Mamate El Youssfi v Office National des Pensions (ONP) (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement EC-Morocco — Article 65 — Principle of non-discrimination in matters of social security — Statutory Guaranteed Income for Elderly Persons) | 25 |
| 2007/C 096/46 | Case C-323/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Theodoros Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Official — Remuneration — Maintenance payments in the context of divorce proceedings — Deductions from salary) | 26 |
| 2007/C 096/47 | Case C-325/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Company, Timas Ltd (trading as Galileo Ireland) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Community project for a satellite navigation system (GALILEO) — Harm suffered by the proprietors of trade marks and business names containing the word Galileo — Appeal partly manifestly admissible and partly manifestly unfounded) | 27 |
| 2007/C 096/48 | Case C-459/05: Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium | 27 |
| 2007/C 096/49 | Case C-69/06: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovakia | 27 |
| 2007/C 096/50 | Case C-83/06: Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic | 27 |
| 2007/C 096/51 | Case C-134/06: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic | 28 |
| 2007/C 096/52 | Case C-153/06: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland | 28 |
| 2007/C 096/53 | Case C-169/06: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Northern Foods Plc, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association | 28 |
| 2007/C 096/54 | Case C-178/06: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 21 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia | 28 |
| 2007/C 096/55 | Case C-253/06: Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany | 28 |
| 2007/C 096/56 | Case C-254/06: Order of the President of the Court of 18 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft v Office Benelux de la propriété intellectuelle formerly known as Bureau Benelux des Marques | 28 |
| 2007/C 096/57 | Case C-351/06: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany | 29 |
| 2007/C 096/58 | Case C-366/06: Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — DNA Verkot Oy, intervener: Sonera Mobile Networks Oy, Viestintävirasto | 29 |
| 2007/C 096/59 | Case C-367/06: Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | 29 |
| 2007/C 096/60 | Case C-386/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Milano — Italy) — Bakemark Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Milano 1 | 29 |
| 2007/C 096/61 | Case C-447/06: Order of the President of the Court of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt., Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Rt. v Magyar Állam, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete | 29 |
| 2007/C 096/62 | Case C-453/06: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland intervener: Vodafone D2 GmbH | 29 |
| | Court of First Instance |
| 2007/C 096/63 | Case T-366/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Land sale price — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Errors in the calculation of the aid — Obligations of the Commission with regard to the calculation of the aid — Rights of the recipient of aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 13(1)) | 30 |
| 2007/C 096/64 | Case T-369/00: Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Département du Loiret v Commission (State aid — Land sale price — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Present-day value of the aid — Compound interest — Statement of reasons) | 30 |
| 2007/C 096/65 | Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007 — Bolloré and Others v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Carbonless paper — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Duration of the infringement — Gravity of the infringement — Increase for deterrence — Aggravating circumstances — Mitigating circumstances — Leniency Notice) | 31 |
| 2007/C 096/66 | Case T-220/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Tomatoes and citrus fruits — Sample checks — Force majeure) | 32 |
| 2007/C 096/67 | Case T-264/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2007 — WWF European Policy Programme v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest — Partial access) | 32 |
| 2007/C 096/68 | Joined Cases T-333/04 and T-334/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2007 — House of Donuts International v OHIM — Panrico (House of Donuts) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community figurative marks House of donuts — Earlier national word marks DONUT and earlier figurative marks donuts — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion) | 33 |
| 2007/C 096/69 | Case T-368/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Verheyden v Commission (Staff case — Application to carry over annual leave — Requirements of the service — Sick leave — Protection of legitimate expectations) | 33 |
| 2007/C 096/70 | Case T-195/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2007 — Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission (Public service contracts — Call for tenders for programme evaluation activities and other activities in the public health sector — Rejection of a tender — Conflict of interest) | 34 |
| 2007/C 096/71 | Case T-183/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2007 — Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Person not individually concerned — Inadmissibility) | 34 |
| 2007/C 096/72 | Case T-417/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in wine — Set of rules governing the use of the list of vine varieties and their synonyms — Limitation in time on use — Action brought by a sub-State body — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2007/C 096/73 | Case T-418/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Federagricole and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in wine — Rules for the use of the names of vine varieties and their synonyms — Temporal limits as regards use — Legal persons — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2007/C 096/74 | Case T-345/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 — V v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Waiver of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Application for other interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency) | 36 |
| 2007/C 096/75 | Case T-449/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 — Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2005/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council — Recognition of professional qualifications — Freedom of establishment — Lawyers — Not directly and individually concerned — Inadmissibility) | 36 |
| 2007/C 096/76 | Case T-384/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee — Lack of urgency) | 37 |
| 2007/C 096/77 | Case T-5/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Belgium v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Unforeseeable circumstances — Excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility) | 37 |
| 2007/C 096/78 | Case T-129/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 April 2007 — Wal-Mart Stores v OHIM — Sánchez Villar (WAL-MART) | 38 |
| 2007/C 096/79 | Case T-325/05: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — TUI v OHIM | 38 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2007/C 096/80 | Case F-31/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Cwik v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Manifest error of assessment) | 39 |
| 2007/C 096/81 | Case F-9/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Canteiro Lopez v Commission (Promotion — No definitive staff report — Comparative examination of the merits) | 39 |
| 2007/C 096/82 | Cases F-44/06 and F-94/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 April 2007 — C and F v Commission (Officials — Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Invalidity pension — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Action for annulment and compensation) | 40 |
| 2007/C 096/83 | Case F-50/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2004 appraisal exercise — General implementing provisions of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations) | 40 |
| 2007/C 096/84 | Case F-71/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2004 appraisal procedure — GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations) | 40 |
| 2007/C 096/85 | Case F-82/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2007 — Thierry v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Non-inclusion in the list of officials promoted — 2004 promotion procedure — Priority points — Merit — Length of service — Admissibility) | 41 |
| 2007/C 096/86 | Case F-39/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Chassagne v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Provisions applicable to officials originating from French overseas departments — Article 8 of Annex VII to the amended Staff Regulations — Application manifestly unfounded in law) | 41 |
| 2007/C 096/87 | Case F-59/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Kerstens v Commission of the European Communities (Career development report — 2004 appraisal procedure — Infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Infringement of the GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations) | 42 |
| 2007/C 096/88 | Case F-87/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 March 2007 — Manté v Council (Staff cases — Pay — Installation allowance — National expert on secondment who has been appointed an official — Recovery of sum not due — Manifest inadmissibility) | 42 |
| 2007/C 096/89 | Case F-13/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 April 2007 — L v European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (Staff case — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Refusal to convene — Manifest inadmissibility) | 42 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2007/C 096/02

Case C-470/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus, Finland) — AGM-COS.MET Srl v Suomen valtio, Tarmo Lehtinen (Directive 98/37/EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Machinery presumed to comply with Directive 98/37/EC — Criticism expressed publicly by a State official)

2

2007/C 096/03

Case C-64/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Fishing licences — Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 — Vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest — Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina)

3

2007/C 096/04

Case C-134/04: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 distributing catch quotas among Member States — Act of Accession of Spain — End of the transitional period — Requirement of relative stability — Principle of non-discrimination — New fishing opportunities)

3

2007/C 096/05

Case C-195/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public supply contract for catering equipment — Article 28 EC — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Principle of non-discrimination — Obligation of transparency)

3

2007/C 096/06

Case C-347/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Rewe Zentralfinanz eG, as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Immediate offsetting of losses incurred by parent companies — Losses stemming from write-downs to the book value of shareholdings in subsidiaries established in other Member States)

4

2007/C 096/07

Case C-348/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Swingward Ltd, and Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd v Swingward Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Eli Lilly and Co. v Dowelhurst Ltd (Industrial and commercial property — Trade mark rights — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel imports — Repackaging of the product bearing the trade mark)

4

2007/C 096/08

Case C-437/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities — Buildings leased by the Communities — Region of Brussels Capital — Tax on owners)

6

2007/C 096/09

Case C-523/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion by a Member State of a bilateral air transport agreement with the United States of America — Right of establishment — Secondary law governing the internal market in air transport — External competence of the Community)

6

2007/C 096/10

Case C-111/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Aktiebolaget NN v Skatteverket (Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of goods — Article 8(1)(a) — Fibre-optic cable between two Member States running in part outside Community territory — Tax jurisdiction of each Member State limited to the length of cable installed on its territory — Non-taxation of the part lying in the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf or on the seabed)

7

2007/C 096/11

Case C-135/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste management — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC)

8

2007/C 096/12

Case C-219/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Treatment of urban waste water — Agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts and certain municipalities of La Ribera — Discharge in a sensitive area without treatment)

8

2007/C 096/13

Case C-273/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Celltech R&D Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for word mark CELLTECH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character)

9

2007/C 096/14

Case C-282/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges)

9

2007/C 096/15

Case C-295/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo, Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales (ASEMFO) v Transformación Agraria SA, Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 86(1) EC — No independent effect — Factors permitting material which enables the Court to give a useful answer to the questions referred — Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC — National legislation enabling a public undertaking to perform operations on the direct instructions of the public authorities without being subject to the general rules for the award of public procurement contracts — Internal management structure — Conditions — The public authority must exercise over a distinct entity a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments — The distinct entity must carry out the essential part of its activities with the public authority or authorities which control it)

10

2007/C 096/16

Case C-356/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General, Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) (Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Injuries to the passengers of a vehicle — Part of a vehicle not adapted for the carriage of seated passengers)

10

2007/C 096/17

Case C-381/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, (Belgium)) — De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA (Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Identifying a competitor or the goods or services offered by a competitor — Goods or services satisfying the same needs or with the same purpose — Reference to designations of origin)

11

2007/C 096/18

Case C-383/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Raffaele Talotta v Belgium State (Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Non-resident taxpayer carrying out a self-employed activity — Setting of minimum tax bases applicable only to non-resident taxpayers — Justified by requirements of general interest — Effectiveness of fiscal supervision — Not justified)

12

2007/C 096/19

Case C-392/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — (Greece)) — Georgios Alevizos v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Freedom of movement for workers — Directive 83/183/EEC — Article 6 — Definitive import into one Member State of a private vehicle from another Member State — Member of the armed forces of one Member State posted temporarily to another Member State for official reasons — Concept of normal residence)

12

2007/C 096/20

Case C-412/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 43(2) and (3) — Genuine use — New plea — Word mark TRAVATAN — Opposition by proprietor of earlier national trade mark TRIVASTAN)

13

2007/C 096/21

Case C-423/05: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste management — Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites)

13

2007/C 096/22

Case C-444/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon — Greece) — Aikaterini Stamatelaki v NPDD Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (OAEE) (Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Reimbursement of the cost of treatment in private hospitals — Justification for, and proportionality of, the exclusion)

14

2007/C 096/23

Case C-455/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(2) — Concept of assumption of obligations — Assumption of the obligation to renovate a property — Refusal of exemption)

14

2007/C 096/24

Case C-15/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Closure of Community financial assistance — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Local or regional entity — Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity — Direct concern)

15

2007/C 096/25

Case C-63/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansц ministerijos (Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Article 27(1)(f) — Alcohol contained in chocolate products — Exemption from the harmonised excise duty)

15

2007/C 096/26

Case C-72/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/9/EC — Asylum policy — Asylum seekers — Reception — Minimum standards — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

16

2007/C 096/27

Case C-141/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/65/EC — Financial services — Distance marketing — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

16

2007/C 096/28

Case C-229/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate)

17

2007/C 096/29

Case C-264/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 16(3) — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Measures necessary)

17

2007/C 096/30

Case C-313/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

18

2007/C 096/31

Case C-320/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/14/EC — Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

18

2007/C 096/32

Case C-388/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/96/EC — Restructuring of the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity — Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

19

2007/C 096/33

Case C-202/05: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — United Kingdom) — Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Patent law — Medicinal products — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Concept of product — Concept of combination of active ingredients)

19

2007/C 096/34

Case C-395/05: Order of the Court of 6 March 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio, Alessandro D'Antoni, Rodolfo Ramieri (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Rules of competition applicable to undertakings — Interpretation of Articles 31 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties)

20

2007/C 096/35

Case C-397/05: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 May 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Maria Grazia di Maggio, Salvatore Buccola (First paragraph of Article 104(3)of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties)

20

2007/C 096/36

Case C-466/05: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Damonte (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties)

21

2007/C 096/37

Case C-150/06 P: Order of the Court of 13 March 2007 — Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica SA, v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland (Appeal — Directive 67/548/EEC — Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Breach of the right to an effective legal remedy — Action for damages — Appeal clearly unfounded)

21

2007/C 096/38

Case C-168/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Regional Administrative Court, Łódź) — Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — First and Sixth VAT Directives — Facts pre-dating the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union — Jurisdiction of the Court)

22

2007/C 096/39

Case C-188/06 P: Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Concentrations between undertakings — Electricity distribution market — Decisions to initiate and close proceedings)

22

2007/C 096/40

Case C-189/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 April 2007 — TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA v GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Public contracts for services — Call for tenders relating to a multiple framework contract for the short term recruitment of experts responsible for providing technical assistance to third countries — Rejection of the appellants' tender — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

23

2007/C 096/41

Case C-191/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Aniello Gallo, Gianluca Damonte (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties)

23

2007/C 096/42

Case C-196/06 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2007 — Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), CompUSA Management Co (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of a figurative mark — Opposition of the proprietor of an earlier national figurative mark — Likelihood of confusion — None — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the conflicting trade marks)

24

2007/C 096/43

Case C-237/06 P: Order of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Staff cases — Decision to close an OLAF investigation — Allegations of fraud made by an official — Locus standi of the official)

24

2007/C 096/44

Case C-245/06 P: Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Saiwa SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for a figurative mark including the word element SELEZIONE ORO Barilla — Opposition by the holder of the national and international trade mark ORO and the national trade mark ORO SAIWA — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

25

2007/C 096/45

Case C-276/06: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Verviers (Belgium)) — Mamate El Youssfi v Office National des Pensions (ONP) (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement EC-Morocco — Article 65 — Principle of non-discrimination in matters of social security — Statutory Guaranteed Income for Elderly Persons)

25

2007/C 096/46

Case C-323/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Theodoros Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Official — Remuneration — Maintenance payments in the context of divorce proceedings — Deductions from salary)

26

2007/C 096/47

Case C-325/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Company, Timas Ltd (trading as Galileo Ireland) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Community project for a satellite navigation system (GALILEO) — Harm suffered by the proprietors of trade marks and business names containing the word Galileo — Appeal partly manifestly admissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

27

2007/C 096/48

Case C-459/05: Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

27

2007/C 096/49

Case C-69/06: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovakia

27

2007/C 096/50

Case C-83/06: Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

27

2007/C 096/51

Case C-134/06: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

28

2007/C 096/52

Case C-153/06: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

28

2007/C 096/53

Case C-169/06: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Northern Foods Plc, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

28

2007/C 096/54

Case C-178/06: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 21 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

28

2007/C 096/55

Case C-253/06: Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

28

2007/C 096/56

Case C-254/06: Order of the President of the Court of 18 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft v Office Benelux de la propriété intellectuelle formerly known as Bureau Benelux des Marques

28

2007/C 096/57

Case C-351/06: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

29

2007/C 096/58

Case C-366/06: Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — DNA Verkot Oy, intervener: Sonera Mobile Networks Oy, Viestintävirasto

29

2007/C 096/59

Case C-367/06: Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

29

2007/C 096/60

Case C-386/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Milano — Italy) — Bakemark Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Milano 1

29

2007/C 096/61

Case C-447/06: Order of the President of the Court of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt., Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Rt. v Magyar Állam, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

29

2007/C 096/62

Case C-453/06: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland intervener: Vodafone D2 GmbH

29

Court of First Instance

2007/C 096/63

Case T-366/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Land sale price — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Errors in the calculation of the aid — Obligations of the Commission with regard to the calculation of the aid — Rights of the recipient of aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 13(1))

30

2007/C 096/64

Case T-369/00: Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Département du Loiret v Commission (State aid — Land sale price — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Present-day value of the aid — Compound interest — Statement of reasons)

30

2007/C 096/65

Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007 — Bolloré and Others v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Carbonless paper — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Duration of the infringement — Gravity of the infringement — Increase for deterrence — Aggravating circumstances — Mitigating circumstances — Leniency Notice)

31

2007/C 096/66

Case T-220/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Tomatoes and citrus fruits — Sample checks — Force majeure)

32

2007/C 096/67

Case T-264/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2007 — WWF European Policy Programme v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest — Partial access)

32

2007/C 096/68

Joined Cases T-333/04 and T-334/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2007 — House of Donuts International v OHIM — Panrico (House of Donuts) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community figurative marks House of donuts — Earlier national word marks DONUT and earlier figurative marks donuts — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

33

2007/C 096/69

Case T-368/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Verheyden v Commission (Staff case — Application to carry over annual leave — Requirements of the service — Sick leave — Protection of legitimate expectations)

33

2007/C 096/70

Case T-195/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2007 — Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission (Public service contracts — Call for tenders for programme evaluation activities and other activities in the public health sector — Rejection of a tender — Conflict of interest)

34

2007/C 096/71

Case T-183/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2007 — Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Person not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

34

2007/C 096/72

Case T-417/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in wine — Set of rules governing the use of the list of vine varieties and their synonyms — Limitation in time on use — Action brought by a sub-State body — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

35

2007/C 096/73

Case T-418/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Federagricole and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in wine — Rules for the use of the names of vine varieties and their synonyms — Temporal limits as regards use — Legal persons — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

35

2007/C 096/74

Case T-345/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 — V v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Waiver of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Application for other interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

36

2007/C 096/75

Case T-449/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 — Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2005/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council — Recognition of professional qualifications — Freedom of establishment — Lawyers — Not directly and individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

36

2007/C 096/76

Case T-384/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee — Lack of urgency)

37

2007/C 096/77

Case T-5/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Belgium v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Unforeseeable circumstances — Excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility)

37

2007/C 096/78

Case T-129/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 April 2007 — Wal-Mart Stores v OHIM — Sánchez Villar (WAL-MART)

38

2007/C 096/79

Case T-325/05: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — TUI v OHIM

38

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2007/C 096/80

Case F-31/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Cwik v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Manifest error of assessment)

39

2007/C 096/81

Case F-9/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Canteiro Lopez v Commission (Promotion — No definitive staff report — Comparative examination of the merits)

39

2007/C 096/82

Cases F-44/06 and F-94/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 April 2007 — C and F v Commission (Officials — Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Invalidity pension — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Action for annulment and compensation)

40

2007/C 096/83

Case F-50/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2004 appraisal exercise — General implementing provisions of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

40

2007/C 096/84

Case F-71/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2004 appraisal procedure — GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

40

2007/C 096/85

Case F-82/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2007 — Thierry v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Non-inclusion in the list of officials promoted — 2004 promotion procedure — Priority points — Merit — Length of service — Admissibility)

41

2007/C 096/86

Case F-39/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Chassagne v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Provisions applicable to officials originating from French overseas departments — Article 8 of Annex VII to the amended Staff Regulations — Application manifestly unfounded in law)

41

2007/C 096/87

Case F-59/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Kerstens v Commission of the European Communities (Career development report — 2004 appraisal procedure — Infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Infringement of the GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations)

42

2007/C 096/88

Case F-87/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 March 2007 — Manté v Council (Staff cases — Pay — Installation allowance — National expert on secondment who has been appointed an official — Recovery of sum not due — Manifest inadmissibility)

42

2007/C 096/89

Case F-13/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 April 2007 — L v European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (Staff case — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Refusal to convene — Manifest inadmissibility)

42

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2007/C 096/90 | Corrigendum to the notice to the Official Journal in Case T-127/05 (OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 28) | 43 |

Corrigenda

2007/C 096/90

Corrigendum to the notice to the Official Journal in Case T-127/05 (OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 28)

(OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 28)

43

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Justice

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/1

---

(2007/C 96/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 95, 28.4.2007

Past publications

OJ C 82, 14.4.2007

OJ C 69, 24.3.2007

OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus, Finland) — AGM-COS.MET Srl v Suomen valtio, Tarmo Lehtinen

(Case C-470/03) (1)

(Directive 98/37/EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Machinery presumed to comply with Directive 98/37/EC - Criticism expressed publicly by a State official)

(2007/C 96/02)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Tampereen käräjäoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AGM-COS.MET Srl

Defendants: Suomen valtio, Tarmo Lehtinen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tampereen käräjäoikeus — Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ 1998 L 207, p. 1) — Measures having equivalent effect — Criticism of car lifts imported from another Member State expressed in public by a State official — Machines not compliant with a harmonised standard — Responsibility of the State for the actions of an official

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Statements which, by reason of their form and circumstances, give the persons to whom they are addressed the impression that they are official positions taken by the State, not personal opinions of the official, are attributable to the State. The decisive factor for the statements of an official to be attributed to the State is whether the persons to whom those statements are addressed can reasonably suppose, in the given context, that they are positions taken by the official with the authority of his office. To the extent that they are attributable to the State, statements by an official describing machinery certified as conforming to Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery as contrary to the relevant harmonised standard and dangerous thus constitute a breach of Article 4(1) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Statements which, by reason of their form and circumstances, give the persons to whom they are addressed the impression that they are official positions taken by the State, not personal opinions of the official, are attributable to the State. The decisive factor for the statements of an official to be attributed to the State is whether the persons to whom those statements are addressed can reasonably suppose, in the given context, that they are positions taken by the official with the authority of his office. To the extent that they are attributable to the State, statements by an official describing machinery certified as conforming to Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery as contrary to the relevant harmonised standard and dangerous thus constitute a breach of Article 4(1) of that directive.

| 2. | In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a breach of Article 4(1) of Directive 98/37 occasioned by the conduct of an official, in so far as it is attributable to the official's Member State, cannot be justified either on the basis of the objective of protection of health or on the basis of the freedom of expression of officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a breach of Article 4(1) of Directive 98/37 occasioned by the conduct of an official, in so far as it is attributable to the official's Member State, cannot be justified either on the basis of the objective of protection of health or on the basis of the freedom of expression of officials.

| 3. | Article 4(1) of Directive 98/37 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it confers rights on individuals and, second, it leaves the Member States no discretion in this case as regards machinery that complies with the directive or is presumed to do so. A failure to comply with that provision as a result of statements made by an official, assuming that they are attributable to the Member State, constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of Community law for the Member State to incur liability. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(1) of Directive 98/37 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it confers rights on individuals and, second, it leaves the Member States no discretion in this case as regards machinery that complies with the directive or is presumed to do so. A failure to comply with that provision as a result of statements made by an official, assuming that they are attributable to the Member State, constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of Community law for the Member State to incur liability.

| 4. | Community law does not preclude specific conditions from being laid down by the domestic law of a Member State with reference to compensation for damage other than damage to persons or property, provided that those conditions are not framed in such a way as to make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to obtain compensation for loss or damage resulting from a breach of Community law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Community law does not preclude specific conditions from being laid down by the domestic law of a Member State with reference to compensation for damage other than damage to persons or property, provided that those conditions are not framed in such a way as to make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to obtain compensation for loss or damage resulting from a breach of Community law.

| 5. | In the event of a breach of Community law, Community law does not preclude an official from being held liable in addition to the Member State, but does not require this. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event of a breach of Community law, Community law does not preclude an official from being held liable in addition to the Member State, but does not require this.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-64/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Fishing licences - Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 - Vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest - Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina)

(2007/C 96/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and B. Doherty, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences — Failure to withdraw the fishing licences of the vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest after their definitive transfer to Argentina

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 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 94, 17.4.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-134/04) (1)

(Fisheries - Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 distributing catch quotas among Member States - Act of Accession of Spain - End of the transitional period - Requirement of relative stability - Principle of non-discrimination - New fishing opportunities)

(2007/C 96/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull and E. Braquehais Conesa, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and G. Ramos Ruano, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Re:

Annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 of 19 December 2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2003 L 344, p. 1) in so far as new fishing opportunities in the North Sea and in the Baltic are not allocated having regard to the interests of Spain despite the end of the transitional regime — Discrimination — Application of Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-195/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public supply contract for catering equipment - Article 28 EC - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Principle of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency)

(2007/C 96/05)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and K. Wiedner, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: A. Tiemann and M. Lumma, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. G. Sevenster and C.M. Wissels and by P. van Ginneken, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — Purchase by a public undertaking of institutional kitchen equipment — Obligation of transparency

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 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 179, 10.7.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Rewe Zentralfinanz eG, as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

(Case C-347/04) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Immediate offsetting of losses incurred by parent companies - Losses stemming from write-downs to the book value of shareholdings in subsidiaries established in other Member States)

(2007/C 96/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rewe Zentralfinanz eG, as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), Article 58 (now Article 48 EC) and Article 73b (now Article 56 EC) — National legislation on corporation tax limiting the set-off by resident parent companies of losses resulting from the writing down of holdings in subsidiary companies resident for tax purposes in other Member States

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a parent company holds shares in a non-resident subsidiary which give it a definite influence over the decisions of that foreign subsidiary and allow it to determine its activities, Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State which restricts the right of a parent company which is resident in that State to deduct for tax purposes losses incurred by that company in respect of write-downs to the book value of its shareholdings in subsidiaries established in other Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Swingward Ltd, and Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd v Swingward Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Eli Lilly and Co. v Dowelhurst Ltd

(Case C-348/04) (1)

(Industrial and commercial property - Trade mark rights - Pharmaceutical products - Parallel imports - Repackaging of the product bearing the trade mark)

(2007/C 96/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd, and Eli Lilly and Co.

Defendants: Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Free movement of goods — Use of a trade mark by the parallel importer of a pharmaceutical product — Change in packaging — Requirements for placing on the market laid down by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova — Interpretation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(2) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, is to be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark owner may legitimately oppose further commercialisation of a pharmaceutical product imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging with an additional external label applied by the importer, unless






  — | it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of the overstickered product under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(2) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, is to be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark owner may legitimately oppose further commercialisation of a pharmaceutical product imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging with an additional external label applied by the importer, unless

—

it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of the overstickered product under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

| — | it is shown that the new label cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is shown that the new label cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging;

| — | the packaging clearly states who overstickered the product and the name of the manufacturer; |
| --- | --- |

—

the packaging clearly states who overstickered the product and the name of the manufacturer;

| — | the presentation of the overstickered product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the label must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the presentation of the overstickered product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the label must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and

| — | the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the overstickered product is put on sale, and, on demand, supplies him with a specimen of that product. |
| --- | --- |

—

the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the overstickered product is put on sale, and, on demand, supplies him with a specimen of that product.

| 2. | The condition that the repackaging of the pharmaceutical product, either by reboxing the product and re-applying the trade mark or by applying a label to the packaging containing the product, be necessary for its further commercialisation in the importing Member State, as one of the conditions which, if fulfilled, prevent the proprietor under Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, from opposing such commercialisation, is directed solely at the fact of repackaging and not at the manner and style of the repackaging. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The condition that the repackaging of the pharmaceutical product, either by reboxing the product and re-applying the trade mark or by applying a label to the packaging containing the product, be necessary for its further commercialisation in the importing Member State, as one of the conditions which, if fulfilled, prevent the proprietor under Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, from opposing such commercialisation, is directed solely at the fact of repackaging and not at the manner and style of the repackaging.

| 3. | The condition that the presentation of the pharmaceutical product must not be such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor — as a necessary condition for preventing the proprietor, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, from legitimately opposing further commercialisation of a pharmaceutical product where the parallel importer has either reboxed the product and re-applied the trade mark or applied a label to the packaging containing the product — is not limited to cases where the repackaging is defective, of poor quality, or untidy. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The condition that the presentation of the pharmaceutical product must not be such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor — as a necessary condition for preventing the proprietor, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, from legitimately opposing further commercialisation of a pharmaceutical product where the parallel importer has either reboxed the product and re-applied the trade mark or applied a label to the packaging containing the product — is not limited to cases where the repackaging is defective, of poor quality, or untidy.

| 4. | The question whether the fact that a parallel importer:






  — | fails to affix the trade mark to the new exterior carton (‘de-branding’), or |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The question whether the fact that a parallel importer:

—

fails to affix the trade mark to the new exterior carton (‘de-branding’), or

| — | applies either his own logo or house-style or get-up or a get-up used for a number of different products (‘co-branding’), or |
| --- | --- |

—

applies either his own logo or house-style or get-up or a get-up used for a number of different products (‘co-branding’), or

| — | positions the additional label so as wholly or partially to obscure the proprietor's trade mark, or |
| --- | --- |

—

positions the additional label so as wholly or partially to obscure the proprietor's trade mark, or

| — | fails to state on the additional label that the trade mark in question belongs to the proprietor, or |
| --- | --- |

—

fails to state on the additional label that the trade mark in question belongs to the proprietor, or

| — | prints the name of the parallel importer in capital letters, |
| --- | --- |

—

prints the name of the parallel importer in capital letters,

is liable to damage the trade mark's reputation is a question of fact for the national court to decide in the light of the circumstances of each case.

| 5. | In situations such as those in the main proceedings, it is for the parallel importers to prove the existence of the conditions that






  — | reliance on trade mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged products under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

In situations such as those in the main proceedings, it is for the parallel importers to prove the existence of the conditions that

—

reliance on trade mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged products under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

| — | the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging;

| — | the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the product and the name of the manufacturer; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the product and the name of the manufacturer;

| — | the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the repackaging must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the repackaging must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and

| — | the importer must give notice to the trade mark proprietor before the repackaged product is put on sale and, on demand, supply him with a specimen of the repackaged product, |
| --- | --- |

—

the importer must give notice to the trade mark proprietor before the repackaged product is put on sale and, on demand, supply him with a specimen of the repackaged product,

and which, if fulfilled, would prevent the proprietor from lawfully opposing the further commercialisation of a repackaged pharmaceutical product.

As regards the condition that it must be shown that the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging, it is sufficient, however, that the parallel importer furnishes evidence that leads to the reasonable presumption that that condition has been fulfilled. This applies a fortiori also to the condition that the presentation of the repackaged product must not be such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor. Where the importer furnishes such initial evidence that the latter condition has been fulfilled, it will then be for the proprietor of the trade mark, who is best placed to assess whether the repackaging is liable to damage his reputation and that of the trade mark, to prove that they have been damaged.

| 6. | Where a parallel importer has failed to give prior notice to the trade mark proprietor concerning a repackaged pharmaceutical product, he infringes that proprietor's rights on the occasion of any subsequent importation of that product, so long as he has not given the proprietor such notice. The sanction for that infringement must be not only proportionate, but also sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, is fully effective. A national measure under which, in the case of such an infringement, the trade mark proprietor is entitled to claim financial remedies on the same basis as if the goods had been spurious, is not in itself contrary to the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court, however, to determine the amount of the financial remedies according to the circumstances of each case, in the light in particular of the extent of damage to the trade mark proprietor caused by the parallel importer's infringement and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Where a parallel importer has failed to give prior notice to the trade mark proprietor concerning a repackaged pharmaceutical product, he infringes that proprietor's rights on the occasion of any subsequent importation of that product, so long as he has not given the proprietor such notice. The sanction for that infringement must be not only proportionate, but also sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, is fully effective. A national measure under which, in the case of such an infringement, the trade mark proprietor is entitled to claim financial remedies on the same basis as if the goods had been spurious, is not in itself contrary to the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court, however, to determine the amount of the financial remedies according to the circumstances of each case, in the light in particular of the extent of damage to the trade mark proprietor caused by the parallel importer's infringement and in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-437/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Buildings leased by the Communities - Region of Brussels Capital - Tax on owners)

(2007/C 96/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier, Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza and A.-M. Colaert, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, exempting the Communities, their assets, revenues and other property from all direct taxes — National provision imposing a tax on owners of buildings subject to business occupancy in the Region of Brussels Capital the surface area of which exceeds a certain threshold — Charge actually falling on the Communities, as lessee, either because of stipulations in the leases, or because it is simply passed on in the amount of the rent

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-523/04) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Conclusion by a Member State of a bilateral air transport agreement with the United States of America - Right of establishment - Secondary law governing the internal market in air transport - External competence of the Community)

(2007/C 96/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and W. Wils, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and M. de Grave, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Hare, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 5 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 and 43 EC) — Infringement of Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 15) and 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerised reservation systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 278, p. 1) — ‘Open sky ’bilateral agreement with the US — Review — Restrictions on freedom to provide services

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | By contracting or maintaining in force, despite the renegotiation of the Air Transport Agreement concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America on 3 April 1957, international commitments towards the United States of America:






  — | concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers designated by the United States of America on intra-Community routes, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

By contracting or maintaining in force, despite the renegotiation of the Air Transport Agreement concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America on 3 April 1957, international commitments towards the United States of America:

—

concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers designated by the United States of America on intra-Community routes,

| — | concerning computerised reservations systems used or offered for use on Netherlands territory, and |
| --- | --- |

—

concerning computerised reservations systems used or offered for use on Netherlands territory, and

| — | recognising the United States of America as having the right to withdraw, suspend or limit traffic rights in cases where air carriers designated by the Kingdom of the Netherlands are not owned by the latter or by Netherlands nationals, |
| --- | --- |

—

recognising the United States of America as having the right to withdraw, suspend or limit traffic rights in cases where air carriers designated by the Kingdom of the Netherlands are not owned by the latter or by Netherlands nationals,

the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), and under Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services and 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerised reservation systems.

| 2. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs.

| 3. | The French Republic is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The French Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Aktiebolaget NN v Skatteverket

(Case C-111/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Supply of goods - Article 8(1)(a) - Fibre-optic cable between two Member States running in part outside Community territory - Tax jurisdiction of each Member State limited to the length of cable installed on its territory - Non-taxation of the part lying in the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf or on the seabed)

(2007/C 96/10)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aktiebolaget NN

Defendant: Skatteverket

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Article 8(1)(a) and 9(1) and (2) 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) — Place of taxable transactions — Supply and laying of an underwater fibre optic cable between two Member States, partly in an area outside the territory of any State

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | A transaction for the supply and installation of a fibre-optic cable linking two Member States and sited in part outside Community territory must be considered a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/93/EC of 3 December 2002, where it is apparent that, after functionality tests carried out by the supplier, the cable will be transferred to the client who will dispose of it as owner, that the price of the cable itself clearly represents the greater part of the total cost of that transaction, and that the supplier's services are limited to the laying of the cable without altering its nature and without adapting it to the specific requirements of the client. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A transaction for the supply and installation of a fibre-optic cable linking two Member States and sited in part outside Community territory must be considered a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/93/EC of 3 December 2002, where it is apparent that, after functionality tests carried out by the supplier, the cable will be transferred to the client who will dispose of it as owner, that the price of the cable itself clearly represents the greater part of the total cost of that transaction, and that the supplier's services are limited to the laying of the cable without altering its nature and without adapting it to the specific requirements of the client.

| 2. | Article 8(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to tax the supply and laying of a fibre-optic cable linking two Member States and sited in part outside the territory of the Community is held by each Member State pro rata according to the length of cable in its territory with regard both to the price of the cable itself and the rest of the materials and to the cost of the services relating to the laying of the cable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to tax the supply and laying of a fibre-optic cable linking two Member States and sited in part outside the territory of the Community is held by each Member State pro rata according to the length of cable in its territory with regard both to the price of the cable itself and the rest of the materials and to the cost of the services relating to the laying of the cable.

| 3. | Article 8(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388, read in conjunction with Articles 2(1) and 3 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply and laying of a fibre-optic cable linking two Member States is not subject to VAT for that part of the transaction which is carried out in the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf and at sea. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 8(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388, read in conjunction with Articles 2(1) and 3 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply and laying of a fibre-optic cable linking two Member States is not subject to VAT for that part of the transaction which is carried out in the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf and at sea.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-135/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Waste management - Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC)

(2007/C 96/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1995 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — Infringement of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) — Infringement of Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures to ensure that:






  — | waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures to ensure that:

—

waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste;

| — | any holder of waste has it handled by a private or public undertaking which carries out the operations of recovery or disposal, or recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991; |
| --- | --- |

—

any holder of waste has it handled by a private or public undertaking which carries out the operations of recovery or disposal, or recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

| — | any establishment or undertaking which carries out waste-disposal operations is required to obtain a permit from the competent authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

any establishment or undertaking which carries out waste-disposal operations is required to obtain a permit from the competent authority;

| — | on every site where tipping (discharge) of hazardous waste takes place the waste is recorded and identified, and |
| --- | --- |

—

on every site where tipping (discharge) of hazardous waste takes place the waste is recorded and identified, and

| — | as regards landfills which had already been granted a permit or were already in operation on 16 July 2001, the operator of a landfill, before 16 July 2002, prepared and presented to the competent authorities, for their approval, a conditioning plan for the site including particulars relating to the conditions of the permit and any corrective measures which the operator considered would be needed and that, following the presentation of the conditioning plan, the competent authorities took a definite decision on whether operations might continue, by closing down as soon as possible sites which had not been granted a permit to continue to operate, or by authorising the necessary work and laying down a transitional period for the completion of the plan, |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards landfills which had already been granted a permit or were already in operation on 16 July 2001, the operator of a landfill, before 16 July 2002, prepared and presented to the competent authorities, for their approval, a conditioning plan for the site including particulars relating to the conditions of the permit and any corrective measures which the operator considered would be needed and that, following the presentation of the conditioning plan, the competent authorities took a definite decision on whether operations might continue, by closing down as soon as possible sites which had not been granted a permit to continue to operate, or by authorising the necessary work and laying down a transitional period for the completion of the plan,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and under Article 14(a) to (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

| 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.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Spain

(Case C-219/05) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water - Agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts and certain municipalities of La Ribera - Discharge in a sensitive area without treatment)

(2007/C 96/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais and I. del Cuvillo Contreras, Agents)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Urban waste water of Sueca, its coastal agglomerations and certain municipalities of La Ribera — Discharge in a sensitive area without adequate treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, the urban waste water of the agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts (El Perelló, Les Palmeres, Mareny de Barrequetes, Playa del Rey and Boga de Mar) and also certain municipalities of the region of La Ribera (Benifaió, Sollano and Almussafes) is treated appropriately before being discharged in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the latter provision being read together with Article 4(4) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, the urban waste water of the agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts (El Perelló, Les Palmeres, Mareny de Barrequetes, Playa del Rey and Boga de Mar) and also certain municipalities of the region of La Ribera (Benifaió, Sollano and Almussafes) is treated appropriately before being discharged in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the latter provision being read together with Article 4(4) of 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 182 of 23.7.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Celltech R&D Ltd

(Case C-273/05 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for word mark CELLTECH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character)

(2007/C 96/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Celltech R&D Ltd (represented by: D. Alexander QC and G. Hobbs QC, instructed by N. Jenkins, Solicitor)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case T-260/03 Celltech R&D Limited v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in which the Court of First Instance annulled decision R 659/2002-2 of OHIM's Second Board of Appeal of 19 May 2003, rejecting the appeal against the examiner's decision refusing registration of the word mark ‘CELLTECH ’for goods and services falling within Classes 5, 10 and 42

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-282/05 P) (1)

(Appeals - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) - Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges)

(2007/C 96/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG (represented by: P. Niggemann and F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, and G. Wilms, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case T-28/03 Holcim (Deutschland) v Commission, dismissing an action for damages which sought to obtain, following the annulment of the Commission's decision imposing a fine in a proceeding under Article 81 EC, the reimbursement of charges in respect of a bank guarantee lodged in order to avoid immediate payment of the fine in question.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2) | Orders Holcim (Deutschland) AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Holcim (Deutschland) AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo, Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales (ASEMFO) v Transformación Agraria SA, Administración del Estado

(Case C-295/05) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Article 86(1) EC - No independent effect - Factors permitting material which enables the Court to give a useful answer to the questions referred - Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC - National legislation enabling a public undertaking to perform operations on the direct instructions of the public authorities without being subject to the general rules for the award of public procurement contracts - Internal management structure - Conditions - The public authority must exercise over a distinct entity a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments - The distinct entity must carry out the essential part of its activities with the public authority or authorities which control it)

(2007/C 96/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales (ASEMFO)

Defendants: Transformación Agraria SA, Administración del Estado

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 86(1) EC and Directives 93/36/EEC, 93/37/EEC, 97/52/EC, 2001/78/EC and 2004/18/EC coordinating procedures for the award of public supply, works, and service contracts — Compatibility of a national law granting to a public undertaking a legal regime which allows it to execute public works outside the procedures provided for the award of public contracts

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directives 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts do not preclude a body of rules such as that governing Tragsa, which enables it, as a public undertaking acting as an instrument and technical service of several public authorities, to execute operations without being subject to the regime laid down by those directives, since, first, the public authorities concerned exercise over that undertaking a control similar to that which they exercise over their own departments, and, second, such an undertaking carries out the essential part of its activities with those same authorities.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General, Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

(Case C-356/05) (1)

(Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Injuries to the passengers of a vehicle - Part of a vehicle not adapted for the carriage of seated passengers)

(2007/C 96/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elaine Farrell

Defendants: Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General, and Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

Re:

Preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — Persons travelling as passengers in a part of a vehicle which is not intended for the carriage of passengers and is not equipped with seating for that purpose — National legislation which does not make such persons subject to compulsory insurance in the event of an accident

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation whereby compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance does not cover liability in respect of personal injuries to persons travelling in a part of a motor vehicle which has not been designed and constructed with seating accommodation for passengers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation whereby compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance does not cover liability in respect of personal injuries to persons travelling in a part of a motor vehicle which has not been designed and constructed with seating accommodation for passengers.

| 2. | Article 1 of Third Directive 90/232 satisfies all the conditions necessary for it to produce direct effect and accordingly confers rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the national courts. However, it is for the national court to determine whether that provision may be relied upon against a body such as the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1 of Third Directive 90/232 satisfies all the conditions necessary for it to produce direct effect and accordingly confers rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the national courts. However, it is for the national court to determine whether that provision may be relied upon against a body such as the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, (Belgium)) — De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA

(Case C-381/05) (1)

(Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC - Comparative advertising - Identifying a competitor or the goods or services offered by a competitor - Goods or services satisfying the same needs or with the same purpose - Reference to designations of origin)

(2007/C 96/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA

Respondents: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal) — Interpretation of Article 2(2a) and Article 3a(b) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — Comparative advertising — Identification of a competitor or of the goods or services offered by a competitor — Use for advertising a beer of terms referring to characteristics of sparkling wines and, more specifically, Champagne

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(2a) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, is to be interpreted as meaning that a reference in an advertisement to a type of product and not to a specific undertaking or product can be considered to be comparative advertising where it is possible to identify that undertaking or the goods that it offers as being actually referred to by the advertisement. The fact that a number of the advertiser's competitors or the goods or services that they offer may be identified as being in fact referred to by the advertisement is of no relevance for the purpose of recognising the comparative nature of the advertising. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(2a) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, is to be interpreted as meaning that a reference in an advertisement to a type of product and not to a specific undertaking or product can be considered to be comparative advertising where it is possible to identify that undertaking or the goods that it offers as being actually referred to by the advertisement. The fact that a number of the advertiser's competitors or the goods or services that they offer may be identified as being in fact referred to by the advertisement is of no relevance for the purpose of recognising the comparative nature of the advertising.

| 2. | The existence of a competitive relationship between the advertiser and the undertaking identified in the advertisement cannot be established independently of the goods or services offered by that undertaking.
  In order to determine whether there is a competitive relationship between the advertiser and the undertaking identified in the advertisement, it is necessary to consider:






  — | the current state of the market and consumer habits and how they might evolve, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The existence of a competitive relationship between the advertiser and the undertaking identified in the advertisement cannot be established independently of the goods or services offered by that undertaking.

In order to determine whether there is a competitive relationship between the advertiser and the undertaking identified in the advertisement, it is necessary to consider:

—

the current state of the market and consumer habits and how they might evolve,

| — | the part of the Community territory in which the advertising is disseminated, without, however, excluding, where appropriate, the effects which the evolution of consumer habits seen in other Member States may have on the national market at issue, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the part of the Community territory in which the advertising is disseminated, without, however, excluding, where appropriate, the effects which the evolution of consumer habits seen in other Member States may have on the national market at issue, and

| — | the particular characteristics of the product which the advertiser seeks to promote and the image which it wishes to impart to it. |
| --- | --- |

—

the particular characteristics of the product which the advertiser seeks to promote and the image which it wishes to impart to it.

The criteria for establishing the existence of a competitive relationship within the meaning of Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, are not identical to those for determining whether the comparison fulfils the condition in Article 3a(1)(b) of the same directive.

| 3. | Advertising which refers to a type of product without thereby identifying a competitor or the goods which it offers is not impermissible with regard to Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55. The conditions governing whether such advertising is permissible must be assessed in the light of other provisions of national law or, where appropriate, of Community law, irrespective of the fact that that could mean a lower level of protection for consumers or competing undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Advertising which refers to a type of product without thereby identifying a competitor or the goods which it offers is not impermissible with regard to Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55. The conditions governing whether such advertising is permissible must be assessed in the light of other provisions of national law or, where appropriate, of Community law, irrespective of the fact that that could mean a lower level of protection for consumers or competing undertakings.

| 4. | Article 3a(1)(f) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that, for products without designation of origin, any comparison which relates to products with designation of origin is not impermissible. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 3a(1)(f) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that, for products without designation of origin, any comparison which relates to products with designation of origin is not impermissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Raffaele Talotta v Belgium State

(Case C-383/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) - Non-resident taxpayer carrying out a self-employed activity - Setting of minimum tax bases applicable only to non-resident taxpayers - Justified by requirements of general interest - Effectiveness of fiscal supervision - Not justified)

(2007/C 96/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffaele Talotta

Defendant: Belgium State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation, Belgium — Interpretation of Article 43 of the EC Treaty — National legislation allowing minimum tax bases to be applied only in the case of non-residents

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes legislation of a Member State, such as the rule resulting from Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992 and Article 182 of the Royal Decree of 27 August 1993 implementing the Income Tax Code 1992, which lays down minimum tax bases only for non-resident taxpayers.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — (Greece)) — Georgios Alevizos v Ipourgos Ikonomikon

(Case C-392/05) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Directive 83/183/EEC - Article 6 - Definitive import into one Member State of a private vehicle from another Member State - Member of the armed forces of one Member State posted temporarily to another Member State for official reasons - Concept of ‘normal residence’)

(2007/C 96/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georgios Alevizos

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64) — Scope of ‘normal residence ’— Civil servants and officers of the armed forces posted abroad on service

Operative part of the judgment

Excise duties such as those at issue in the main proceedings come within the scope of the tax exemption provided for in Article 1(1) of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals, as amended by Council Directive 89/604/EEC of 23 November 1989, where it is established — and that is something which it is for the national court to determine — that they are normally charged on the permanent importation by a private individual of a vehicle for personal use from another Member State. A special supplementary single payment registration tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings comes within Article 1(1) where it is established — and that is something which it is for the national court to determine — that it is linked to the actual importation of the vehicle.

Article 6(1) of Directive 83/183 must be interpreted as meaning that an employee in the public service, the armed forces, the public security forces or the harbour police corps of a Member State, who stays for at least 185 days a year in another Member State with the members of his family in order to carry out an official task of a definite duration in that latter State, has, during the period of that task, his normal residence, within the meaning of Article 6(1), in that other Member State.

If, at the conclusion of the national court's investigations, it is established that the taxes at issue in the main proceedings do not come within the scope of the tax exemption provided for by Article 1(1) of Directive 83/183, it will be for the national court, having regard to the requirements arising from Article 39 EC, to determine whether the national provisions governing those taxes are such as to ensure that a person who, in the context of a transfer of residence, imports a vehicle into his Member State of origin is not placed in a less favourable position in connection with those taxes than that of other persons living permanently in that Member State and, if so, whether such a difference in treatment is justified by objective considerations that are independent of the residence of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA

(Case C-412/05 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal of registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 43(2) and (3) - Genuine use - New plea - Word mark ‘TRAVATAN’ - Opposition by proprietor of earlier national trade mark ‘TRIVASTAN’)

(2007/C 96/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alcon Inc. (represented by: G. Breen, solicitor, and J. Gleeson SC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent) Biofarma SA (represented by: V. Gil Vega and A. Ruiz López, laywers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2005 in Case T-130/03 Alcon v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the Community trade mark ‘TRAVATAN ’in respect of goods in Class 5 against Decision R 968/2001-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 January 2003, which had dismissed the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘TRIVASTAN ’in respect of goods in Class 5

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Alcon Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alcon Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 3. | Orders Biofarma SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Biofarma SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-423/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Waste management - Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC - Unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites)

(2007/C 96/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and O. Christmann, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Failure to take necessary measures to close down or upgrade unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon — Greece) — Aikaterini Stamatelaki v NPDD Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (OAEE)

(Case C-444/05) (1)

(Restrictions on the freedom to provide services - Reimbursement of the cost of treatment in private hospitals - Justification for, and proportionality of, the exclusion)

(2007/C 96/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aikaterini Stamatelaki

Defendant: NPDD Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (OAEE)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 50 EC — Conditions governing the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in another Member State — National legislation allowing medical expenses incurred in a private hospital in another Member State to be reimbursed only in the case of treatment of minors under the age of 14 whereas, when treatment takes place in a public hospital, the only condition imposed by the national legislation for reimbursement is that prior authorisation be obtained.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes all reimbursement by a national social security institution of the costs occasioned by treatment of persons insured with it in private hospitals in another Member State, except those relating to treatment provided to children under 14 years of age.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel

(Case C-455/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(2) - Concept of ‘assumption of obligations’ - Assumption of the obligation to renovate a property - Refusal of exemption)

(2007/C 96/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(2) 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 — Concept of ‘assumption of obligations ’— Refusal to exempt the assumption of a renovation obligation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(2) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of assumption of obligations excludes from the scope of that provision obligations which are non-pecuniary, such as the obligation to renovate a property.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-15/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Closure of Community financial assistance - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Local or regional entity - Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity - Direct concern)

(2007/C 96/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Regione Siciliana, (represented by G. Aiello, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, G. Faedo, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/03 Regione Siciliana v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as unfounded an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4905 of 11 December 2002 relating to the cancellation of the aid initially granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for a sum no less than ECU 15 million in respect of an infrastructure project for the construction of a dam in Sicily (Italy), and the recovery of the advance made by the Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/03 Regione Siciliana v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/03 Regione Siciliana v Commission.

| 2. | Rejects as inadmissible the Regione Siciliana's action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 4905 of 11 December 2002 relating to the cancellation of the aid granted to the Italian Republic by Commission Decision C (87) 2090 026 of 17 December 1987 concerning the provision of assistance by the European Regional Development Fund as infrastructure investment, for a sum no less than EUR 15 million, in Italy (region: Sicily), and for the recovery of the advance on that assistance made by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects as inadmissible the Regione Siciliana's action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 4905 of 11 December 2002 relating to the cancellation of the aid granted to the Italian Republic by Commission Decision C (87) 2090 026 of 17 December 1987 concerning the provision of assistance by the European Regional Development Fund as infrastructure investment, for a sum no less than EUR 15 million, in Italy (region: Sicily), and for the recovery of the advance on that assistance made by the Commission.

| 3. | Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal brought by the Regione Siciliana against the judgment referred to in paragraph 1 of the present operative part. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal brought by the Regione Siciliana against the judgment referred to in paragraph 1 of the present operative part.

| 4. | Orders the Regione Siciliana to pay the costs of these proceedings and also those incurred in the procedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Regione Siciliana to pay the costs of these proceedings and also those incurred in the procedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansц ministerijos

(Case C-63/06) (1)

(Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 27(1)(f) - Alcohol contained in chocolate products - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty)

(2007/C 96/25)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB Profisa

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of Article 27(1)(f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 concerning harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Obligation to exempt alcohol contained in chocolate products being imported from third countries

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1)(f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages should be understood as imposing an obligation on Member States to exempt from harmonised excise duty ethyl alcohol imported into the customs territory of the European Union and contained in chocolate products intended for direct use, where the alcohol content does not exceed 8.5 litres for every 100 kilograms of the chocolate products.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-72/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/9/EC - Asylum policy - Asylum seekers - Reception - Minimum standards - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2007/C 96/26)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and C. O'Reilly, Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18)

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 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 of that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74 of 25.3.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-141/06) (1)

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

(2007/C 96/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, as regards financial services other than private insurance, 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, as regards financial services other than private insurance, 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 Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, as regards financial services other than private insurance, 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 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 121 of 20.5.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Case C-229/06) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate)

(2007/C 96/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Subheadings 1209 91 90 and 1212 99 80 — Shelled pumpkin seeds which have lost the ability to germinate and are intended for the baking industry

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 1212 99 80 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that shelled pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate and which are intended for use in the baking industry come under that subheading.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-264/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 16(3) - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Measures necessary)

(2007/C 96/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Adoption of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(3) of that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(3) of that regulation;

| 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 190, 12.8.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-313/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2007/C 96/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Lawunmi and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (OJ 2004 L 146, p. 1)

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 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, the Italian Republic 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 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-320/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/14/EC - Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community - Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

(2007/C 96/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, acting as Agent)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, 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 212, 2.9.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-388/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/96/EC - Restructuring of the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity - Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

(2007/C 96/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.C. Gracia, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/19

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — United Kingdom) — Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents

(Case C-202/05) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Patent law - Medicinal products - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Concept of ‘product’ - Concept of ‘combination of active ingredients’)

(2007/C 96/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division)

Parties

Applicant: Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘product ’— Concept of ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product ’— Medicinal product composed of two components, one having a recognised therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other enabling the product to be presented in a form that ensures its efficacy

Operative part of the order

Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, in the version resulting from the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as meaning that in a case where a basic patent protects a second medical use of an active ingredient, that use does not form an integral part of the definition of the product.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/20

---

Order of the Court of 6 March 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio, Alessandro D'Antoni, Rodolfo Ramieri

(Case C-395/05) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Rules of competition applicable to undertakings - Interpretation of Articles 31 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - Games of chance - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form - Requirement of police authorisation - Criminal penalties)

(2007/C 96/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy)

Criminal proceedings against

Antonello D'Antonio, Alessandro D'Antoni, Rodolfo Ramieri

Action

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Viterbo — Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 89 EC — National law making exercise of activity of taking bets subject to obtaining authorisation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively. |
| --- | --- |

1.

National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

| 2. | It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

| 3. | Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

| 4. | Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/20

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 May 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Maria Grazia di Maggio, Salvatore Buccola

(Case C-397/05) (1)

(First paragraph of Article 104(3)of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Games of chance - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form - Requirement of police authorisation - Criminal penalties)

(2007/C 96/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Palermo (Italy)

Criminal proceedings against

Maria Grazia di Maggio, Salvatore Buccola

Action

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Palermo — Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 89 EC — National legislation making the collection of bets subject to a licensing requirement

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively. |
| --- | --- |

1.

National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

| 2. | It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

| 3. | Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

| 4. | Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/21

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Damonte

(Case C-466/05) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Games of chance - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form - Requirement of police authorisation - Criminal penalties)

(2007/C 96/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Lecce

Criminal proceedings against

Gianluca Damonte

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Lecce — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — National law requiring authorisation to be obtained before the activity of collecting bets can be pursued

Operative part of the order

| 1. | National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively. |
| --- | --- |

1.

National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

| 2. | It is for the national court to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national court to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

| 3. | Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

| 4. | Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendant in this case for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendant in this case for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 74 of 25.3.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/21

---

Order of the Court of 13 March 2007 — Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica SA, v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland

(Case C-150/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Directive 67/548/EEC - Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Breach of the right to an effective legal remedy - Action for damages - Appeal clearly unfounded)

(2007/C 96/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica SA (represented by: C. Mereu and K. van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, Agents), Republic of Finland

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2005 in Case T-369/03 Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for annulment of Commission Decision D(2003)430245 of 20 August 2003, rejecting the applicant's request to withdraw rosin from the list of dangerous substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 196, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA and Cray Valley Iberica SA shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA and Cray Valley Iberica SA shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/22

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Regional Administrative Court, Łódź) — Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

(Case C-168/06) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - First and Sixth VAT Directives - Facts pre-dating the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union - Jurisdiction of the Court)

(2007/C 96/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi

Parties

Applicant: Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Poland) — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ 1967 L 71, p. 1301), and Articles 2, 10(1)(a), 10(2) and 27(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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) — National legislation providing for the imposition of an additional tax in cases where irregularities are found in the return submitted by the taxable person

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/22

---

Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-188/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Concentrations between undertakings - Electricity distribution market - Decisions to initiate and close proceedings)

(2007/C 96/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Schneider Electric SA (represented by: A. Winckler, I. Girgenson and M. Pittie, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03 Schneider Electric SA v Commission, rejecting as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission's Decision of 4 December 2002 to initiate a detailed examination of the concentration between Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II) and of the Commission's Decision of 13 December 2002 to close the proceedings examining the concentration.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Schneider Electric SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Schneider Electric SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/23

---

Order of the Court of 20 April 2007 — TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA v GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-189/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public contracts for services - Call for tenders relating to a multiple framework contract for the short term recruitment of experts responsible for providing technical assistance to third countries - Rejection of the appellants' tender - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2007/C 96/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2006 in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission dismissing the application for annulment, first, of the Commission's decisions of 12 October 2005 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicants in the context of the procedure for the call for tenders bearing the reference ‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/multi-Lot 7 ’and, second, of any other decision taken by the Commission in the context of the same call for tenders following the decisions of 12 October 2005

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders TEA-CEGOS SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TEA-CEGOS SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/23

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Aniello Gallo, Gianluca Damonte

(Case C-191/06) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Games of chance - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form - Requirement of police authorisation - Criminal penalties)

(2007/C 96/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)

Criminal proceedings against

Aniello Gallo, Gianluca Damonte

Action

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Lecce — Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 86 EC — National law making the activity of collecting bets subject to prior authorisation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively. |
| --- | --- |

1.

National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

| 2. | It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

| 3. | Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

| 4. | Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/24

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2007 — Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), CompUSA Management Co

(Case C-196/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of a figurative mark - Opposition of the proprietor of an earlier national figurative mark - Likelihood of confusion - None - No similarity between the goods and services covered by the conflicting trade marks)

(2007/C 96/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alecansan SL (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), CompUSA Management Co

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03 Alecansan v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘COMP USA ’in respect of goods in Class 39 for annulment of Decision R 711/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2003 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition lodged against the application for registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘COMP USA ’in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 37 — Similarity between the marks — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Alecansan SL shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Alecansan SL shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/24

---

Order of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-237/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Staff cases - Decision to close an OLAF investigation - Allegations of fraud made by an official - Locus standi of the official)

(2007/C 96/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Guido Strack (represented by: L. Füllkrug, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party/parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer and C. Ladenburger, as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Strack v Commission by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible an action seeking, first, annulment of OLAF's decision to close an investigation initiated after allegations of fraud made by the appellant, and of the final report of the investigation, and, second, re-initiation of that investigation and the drawing up of a new final report — Meaning of ‘act adversely affecting an official ’in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — Obligation to refer the case to the Civil Service Staff Tribunal

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Strack is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Strack is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/25

---

Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Saiwa SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA

(Case C-245/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Application for a figurative mark including the word element ‘SELEZIONE ORO Barilla’ - Opposition by the holder of the national and international trade mark ORO and the national trade mark ORO SAIWA - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2007/C 96/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Saiwa SpA (represented by: G. Sena, P. Tarchini, J.-P. Karsenty, M. Karsenty-Ricard, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, Agents), Barilla G. and R Fratelli SpA, formerly Barilla Alimentare SpA (represented by A. Vanzetti, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-344/03 Saiwa SpA v OHIM, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the national and international word mark ‘ORO ’and the national word mark ‘ORO SAIWA ’for goods in Class 30, for annulment of Decision R 480/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 July 2003 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition filed against the application to register a figurative mark including the word elements ‘SELEZIONE ORO ’and ‘Barilla ’for goods in Class 30 — Similarity of marks — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Saiwa SpA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Saiwa SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

| 3. | Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/25

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Verviers (Belgium)) — Mamate El Youssfi v Office National des Pensions (ONP)

(Case C-276/06) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Euro-Mediterranean Agreement EC-Morocco - Article 65 - Principle of non-discrimination in matters of social security - Statutory Guaranteed Income for Elderly Persons)

(2007/C 96/45)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du Travail, Verviers

Parties

Applicant: Mamate El Youssfi

Defendant: Office National des Pensions (ONP)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du Travail de Verviers — Interpretation of Article 41 of the Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and the Kingdom of Morocco, approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1), as amended by Article 65 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2000 L 70, p. 2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 1) and Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Principle of non discrimination — Refusal to grant statutory guaranteed income to elderly persons to a Moroccan national resident in Belgium

Operative part of the order

The first subparagraph of Article 65(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 26 February 1996 and approved on behalf of the Communities by Decision No 2000/204/EC, ECSC of the Council and the Commission of 24 January 2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the host Member State may not refuse to grant the statutory guaranteed income for elderly persons to a Moroccan national who has reached the age of 65 and resides legally in that State as long as she comes within the scope of that provision

| — | either because she herself has been employed in the Member State concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

either because she herself has been employed in the Member State concerned,

| — | or she is a member of the family of a worker of Moroccan nationality who has been employed in that State. |
| --- | --- |

—

or she is a member of the family of a worker of Moroccan nationality who has been employed in that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 224 of 16.9.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/26

---

Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Theodoros Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-323/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Official - Remuneration - Maintenance payments in the context of divorce proceedings - Deductions from salary)

(2007/C 96/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Theodoros Kallianos (represented by: G. Archambeau, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04 Kallianos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed, first, the application for annulment of the Commission's decision concerning certain deductions made from the appellant's remuneration in pursuance of interim measures ordered by a Belgian court, and second, the appellant's claim for reimbursement of those sums and for damages — Powers of the European institutions in the context of national divorce proceedings — Methods of communication of divorce decrees and their effectiveness vis-à-vis those institutions

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Kallianos shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Kallianos shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/27

---

Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Company, Timas Ltd (trading as Galileo Ireland) v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-325/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community project for a satellite navigation system (GALILEO) - Harm suffered by the proprietors of trade marks and business names containing the word Galileo - Appeal partly manifestly admissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

(2007/C 96/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, (represented by: J.-N. Louis and C. Delcorde)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and W. Wils, as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 May 2006 in Case T-279/03 Galileo International Technology and Others v Commission by which the Court dismissed an application seeking, first, an order that the Commission cease to use the term Galileo in relation to the Community project for a global satellite navigation system and to encourage others to use that term, and, second, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants on account of the use and promotion of that term by the Commission, which they claimed to be identical to trade marks registered by them and to their business names

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Co. and Timas Ltd are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Co. and Timas Ltd are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-459/05) (1)

(2007/C 96/48)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/27

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovakia

(Case C-69/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/49)

Language of the case: Slovak

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

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-83/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/50)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-134/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/51)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/28

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-153/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/52)

Language of the case: Swedish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Northern Foods Plc, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

(Case C-169/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/53)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/28

---

Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 21 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-178/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/54)

Language of the case: Estonian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-253/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/55)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 30.9.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft v Office Benelux de la propriété intellectuelle formerly known as Bureau Benelux des Marques

(Case C-254/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/56)

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.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-351/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/57)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — DNA Verkot Oy, intervener: Sonera Mobile Networks Oy, Viestintävirasto

(Case C-366/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/58)

Language of the case: Finnish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-367/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/59)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Milano — Italy) — Bakemark Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Milano 1

(Case C-386/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/60)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt., Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Rt. v Magyar Állam, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

(Case C-447/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/61)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland intervener: Vodafone D2 GmbH

(Case C-453/06) (1)

(2007/C 96/62)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

---

Court of First Instance

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-366/00) (1)

(State aid - Land sale price - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Errors in the calculation of the aid - Obligations of the Commission with regard to the calculation of the aid - Rights of the recipient of aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 13(1))

(2007/C 96/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scott SA, (Saint-Cloud (France)) (represented by: Sir Jeremy Lever QC, G. Peretz and J. Gardner, Barristers, and R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors,)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and J. Flett, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues, S. Seam and F. Million, Agents),

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark to the extent that it concerns the aid granted in the form of a preferential price for the property referred to in Article 1; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark to the extent that it concerns the aid granted in the form of a preferential price for the property referred to in Article 1;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant relating to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant relating to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/30

---

Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Département du Loiret v Commission

(Case T-369/00) (1)

(State aid - Land sale price - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Present-day value of the aid - Compound interest - Statement of reasons)

(2007/C 96/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Département du Loiret (France) (represented by: A. Carnelutti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and J. Flett, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Scott SA (Saint-Cloud (France), (represented by: Sir Jeremy Lever QC, J. Gardner and G. Peretz, Barristers and R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors)

Re:

Partial annulument of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark in so far as it concerns the aid granted in the form of a preferential price for the property referred to in Article 1; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark in so far as it concerns the aid granted in the form of a preferential price for the property referred to in Article 1;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and by Scott SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/31

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007 — Bolloré and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Carbonless paper - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the infringement - Gravity of the infringement - Increase for deterrence - Aggravating circumstances - Mitigating circumstances - Leniency Notice)

(2007/C 96/65)

Languages of the case: Spanish, German, English and French

Parties

Applicant in Case T-109/02: Bolloré SA (Puteaux, France) (represented by: R. Saint-Esteben and H. Calvet, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-118/02: Arjo Wiggins Appleton Ltd (Basingstoke, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Brunet, lawyer, J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, and J. Grierson, Barrister)

Applicant in Case T-122/02: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH, formerly Stora Carbonless Paper GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: I. van Bael, lawyer, and A. Kmiecik, Solicitor)

Applicant in Case T-125/02: Papierfabrik August Koehler AG (Oberkirch, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker and S. Hirsbrunner, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-126/02: M-real Zanders GmbH, formerly Zanders Feinpapiere AG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: J. Burrichter and M. Wirtz, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-128/02: Papeteries Mougeot SA (Laval-sur-Vologne, France) (represented initially by G. Barsi, J. Baumgartner and J.-P. Hordies, and subsequently by Messrs Barsi and Baumgartner, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-129/02: Torraspapel, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Cantos and C. Schillemans, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-132/02: Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles, SL (Derio, Spain) (represented by: E. Pérez Medrano and I. Delgado González, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-136/02: Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga, SA (Hernani, Spain) (represented by I. Quintana Aguirre, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented, in Cases T-109/02 and T-128/02, by W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, lawyer, in Cases T-118/02 and T-129/02, by W. Mölls and A. Whelan, assisted by M. van der Woude, lawyer, in Case T-122/02, initially by R. Wainwright and W. Mölls, and subsequently by R. Wainwright and A. Whelan, Agents, in Cases T-125/02 and T-126/02, by W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, assisted by H.-J. Freund, lawyer, in Cases T-132/02 and T-136/02, by W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-118/02: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Snoecx and M. Wimmer, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) (OJ 2004 L 115, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | In Case T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission:






  — | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In Case T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission:

—

dismisses the action;

| — | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

| 2. | In Case T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission:






  — | sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) at EUR 141.75 million; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In Case T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission:

—

sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) at EUR 141.75 million;

| — | dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismisses the remainder of the action;

| — | orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and pay one third of those incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and pay one third of those incurred by the applicant;

| — | orders the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission related to the intervention. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission related to the intervention.

| 3. | In Case T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission:






  — | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

In Case T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission:

—

dismisses the action;

| — | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

| 4. | In Case T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission:






  — | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

In Case T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission:

—

dismisses the action;

| — | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

| 5. | In Case T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission:






  — | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

In Case T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission:

—

dismisses the action;

| — | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

| 6. | In Case T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission:






  — | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

In Case T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission:

—

dismisses the action;

| — | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

| 7. | In Case T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission:






  — | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

In Case T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission:

—

dismisses the action;

| — | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

| 8. | In Case T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission:






  — | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

In Case T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission:

—

dismisses the action;

| — | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

| 9. | In Case T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission:






  — | sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) at EUR 1 309 million; |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

In Case T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission:

—

sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) at EUR 1 309 million;

| — | dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismisses the remainder of the action;

| — | orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and pay one third of those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and pay one third of those incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 1.6.2002.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-220/04) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Tomatoes and citrus fruits - Sample checks - Force majeure)

(2007/C 96/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea and F. Díez Moreno, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially M. Nolin and S. Pardo Quintillán and subsequently by M. Nolin and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 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 40, p. 31)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing a sum of EUR 979 554,48 corresponding to an adjustment of the aid to Andalusian growers of certain citrus fruits in respect of the financial years 1998 to 2001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing a sum of EUR 979 554,48 corresponding to an adjustment of the aid to Andalusian growers of certain citrus fruits in respect of the financial years 1998 to 2001;

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

2.

dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 29.5.2004 (formerly C-175/04).

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2007 — WWF European Policy Programme v Council

(Case T-264/04) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest - Partial access)

(2007/C 96/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WWF European Policy Programme (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Haynes, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Bauer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and P. Aalto, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the Council's decision of 30 April 2004 refusing to give the applicant access to certain documents relating to the meeting of the committee of the Council known as ‘the Article 133 Committee ’of 19 December 2003.

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 Council; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council;

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

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2007 — House of Donuts International v OHIM — Panrico (House of Donuts)

(Joined Cases T-333/04 and T-334/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community figurative marks ‘House of donuts’ - Earlier national word marks ‘DONUT ’and earlier figurative marks ‘donuts’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion)

(2007/C 96/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: House of Donuts International (George Town, Grand Cayman) (represented by: N. Decker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Panrico, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2004 (Cases R 1034/2001-4 and R 1036/2001-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico, SA and House of Donuts International

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and of the intervener.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Verheyden v Commission

(Case T-368/04) (1)

(Staff case - Application to carry over annual leave - Requirements of the service - Sick leave - Protection of legitimate expectations)

(2007/C 96/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luc Verheyden (Angera, Italy) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Re:

Application, firstly, for annulment of the decisions of the applicant's head of unit, dated 4, 24 and 27 February 2004, relating to the applicant's application to carry over from 2003 to 2004 the days of annual leave not taken which exceeded the threshold of 12 days and for annulment of the administration's decision of 1 June 2004, received on 14 June 2004, rejecting the applicant's complaint and, secondly, for an order that the Commission pay compensation for 32 days of annual leave not used up and not paid, together with interest at 5.25 % from the date of commencement of this action and for an order for payment of damages in respect of non-material damage, detriment to his career and detriment to his reputation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the applicant's superior of 27 February 2004 refusing to sign his application to carry over annual leave from 2003 to 2004, in so far as it refuses to grant the carrying over, in addition to the 12 days which may be carried over as of right, of eight days of annual leave referred to by the director of resources of the Joint Research Centre in an email of 11 February 2003; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the applicant's superior of 27 February 2004 refusing to sign his application to carry over annual leave from 2003 to 2004, in so far as it refuses to grant the carrying over, in addition to the 12 days which may be carried over as of right, of eight days of annual leave referred to by the director of resources of the Joint Research Centre in an email of 11 February 2003;

| 2. | orders the Commission to pay the applicant a sum corresponding to eight thirtieths of his monthly remuneration at the time of leaving the service, together with default interest as from 13 September 2004. The rate of default interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the European Central Bank's rate for its main refinancing operations, in force during the period concerned, plus two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Commission to pay the applicant a sum corresponding to eight thirtieths of his monthly remuneration at the time of leaving the service, together with default interest as from 13 September 2004. The rate of default interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the European Central Bank's rate for its main refinancing operations, in force during the period concerned, plus two percentage points;

| 3. | dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2007 — Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission

(Case T-195/05) (1)

(Public service contracts - Call for tenders for programme evaluation activities and other activities in the public health sector - Rejection of a tender - Conflict of interest)

(2007/C 96/70)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Deloitte Business Advisory NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Van Heuven, S. Ronse and S. Logie, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, firstly, of the Commission's decision rejecting the tender from Euphet for the public procurement contract ‘Evaluation Framework Contract covering the policy areas of [the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection], Lot 1 (Public Health) — call for tenders SANCO/2004/01/041 ’and, secondly, of the Commission's decision awarding that contract to a third party

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the applicant, Deloitte Business Advisory NV, to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant, Deloitte Business Advisory NV, to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/34

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2007 — Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-183/04) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Person not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 96/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tokai Europe GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kroemer, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 28.8.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/35

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission

(Case T-417/04) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in wine - Set of rules governing the use of the list of vine varieties and their synonyms - Limitation in time on use - Action brought by a sub-State body - Persons individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 96/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia (represented by: E. Bevilacqua and F. Capelli, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Righini, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: P. Gottfried, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the provision limiting up to 31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘Tocai friulano ’which is set out, in the form of an explanatory note, in item 103 in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

| 3. | The Republic of Hungary is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Hungary is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/35

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Federagricole and Others v Commission

(Case T-418/04) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in wine - Rules for the use of the names of vine varieties and their synonyms - Temporal limits as regards use - Legal persons - Persons individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 96/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Federagricole (Udine, Italy); Friulvini Soc. coop. rl (Zoppola, Italy); Cantina Produttori di Ramuscello e San Vito Soc. coop. rl (Sesto Al Reghena, Italy); Cantina Produttori Cormòns — Vini del Collio e dell'Isonzo Soc. coop. rl (Cormòns, Italy); and Luigi Soini (Cormòns) (represented by: F. Capelli, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Righini, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: P. Gottfried, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the provision limiting to 31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘Tocai friulano ’referred to, in the form of an explanatory note, in item 103 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.

| 3. | The Republic of Hungary is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Hungary is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/36

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 — V v Parliament

(Case T-345/05 R)

(Application for interim measures - Waiver of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Application for other interim measures - Admissibility - Urgency)

(2007/C 96/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: V. (Binsted, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Lofthouse, Barrister, M. Monan, C. Hayes, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION, firstly, for suspension of the operation of the Resolution of the European Parliament [confidential information omitted] to waive the applicant's immunity from suit, secondly, for interim measures to prevent criminal proceedings being resumed pending final judgment of the Court of First Instance in the main action, thirdly, for an order that the applicant's anonymity be protected and that there be no publicity in respect of the present application pending the ruling of the Court of First Instance on the main application and the conclusion of any trial before the national court, fourthly, for a direction that the applicant be granted permission to disclose the parties' written pleadings in the interlocutory proceedings and in the main action to the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom and to the national court hearing the domestic case and, fifthly, for an order that the hearing of the main application be expedited so as to take place as soon as possible.

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.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 — Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case T-449/05) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive 2005/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council - Recognition of professional qualifications - Freedom of establishment - Lawyers - Not directly and individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 96/75)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon (Greece) (represented by: S. Athanasiou)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein, A. Troupiotis and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M.C. Giorgi Fort, M. Balta and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

Re:

Partial annulment of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 2)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene; |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene;

| 3. | The applicant is to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the Parliament and the Council. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicant is to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the Parliament and the Council.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission

(Case T-384/06 R)

(Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Lack of urgency)

(2007/C 96/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: IBP Ltd (Tipton, West Midlands, United Kingdom) and International Building Products France SA (Sartrouville, France) (represented by: M. Clough and A. Aldred, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Article 2(c) and (d) of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) and, in particular, for dispensation from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee imposed by the Commission's letter of 4 October 2006 notifying the applicants of the decision

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.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-5/07) (1)

(Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing an action - Unforeseeable circumstances - Excusable error - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2007/C 96/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, Agent, assisted by J.-P. Buyle and C. Steyaert, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision set out in the letter of 18 October 2006, refusing to repay the applicant the sum paid by it in settlement of the principal amount owed plus interest in respect of debts to the European Social Fund

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/38

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 April 2007 — Wal-Mart Stores v OHIM — Sánchez Villar (WAL-MART)

(Case T-129/05) (1)

(2007/C 96/78)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/38

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — TUI v OHIM

(Case T-325/05) (1)

(2007/C 96/79)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/39

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Cwik v Commission

(Case F-31/05) (1)

(Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2003 appraisal procedure - Action for annulment - Plea of illegality - Manifest error of assessment)

(2007/C 96/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Michael Cwik (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and J. Currall, agents)

Re:

First, application for annulment of his Career Development Report drawn up in respect of the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003 and, as far as necessary, of the decision of 24 January 2005 rejecting his complaint against the 2003 CDR and, secondly, an order that the Commission of the European Communities pay token damages of EUR 1.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 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 193, 6.8.2005 (Case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as case T-200/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/39

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Canteiro Lopez v Commission

(Case F-9/06) (1)

(Promotion - No definitive staff report - Comparative examination of the merits)

(2007/C 96/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rui Canteiro Lopez (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission decision of 4 March 2005 not to add the applicant's name to the list of officials judged to be the most deserving and not to promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.

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 74, 25.3.2006, p. 35.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/40

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 April 2007 — C and F v Commission

(Cases F-44/06 and F-94/06) (1)

(Officials - Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Invalidity pension - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Action for annulment and compensation)

(2007/C 96/82)

Language of the cases: French

Parties

Applicants: C and F (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. van Rossum, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

Re:

In Case F-44/06:

First, annulment of the decision of 13 June 2005 refusing to adopt, with respect to the applicant, any measure to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-376/02, brought by the same applicant against a decision of 14 January 2002 and, second, annulment of the decision of 23 February 2006 compulsorily retiring the applicant with entitlement to an invalidity allowance to be determined in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with retroactive effect from 1 February 2002.

In Case F-94/06:

First, annulment of the decision of 23 February 2006 compulsorily retiring the applicant with entitlement to an invalidity allowance to be determined in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with retroactive effect from 1 February 2002 and, second, an application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 2 000 in respect of non-material damage sustained by him. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 2 000 in respect of non-material damage sustained by him.

| 2. | The remainder of the applications is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the applications is dismissed.

| 3. | The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the applicant's costs in Cases F-44/06 C v Commission and F-94/06 F v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the applicant's costs in Cases F-44/06 C v Commission and F-94/06 F v Commission.

---

(1)  F-44/06: OJ C 154, 1.7.2006, p. 25 and F-94/06: OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 22.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/40

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

(Case F-50/06) (1)

(Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2004 appraisal exercise - General implementing provisions of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

(2007/C 96/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

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

Re:

Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls Ms Lebedef-Caponi's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Ms Lebedef-Caponi's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

| 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 154, 2.7.2006, p. 27.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/40

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

(Case F-71/06) (1)

(Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2004 appraisal procedure - GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

(2007/C 96/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report in respect of the period 1/1/2004 — 31/12/2004

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 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 190, 12.8.2006, p. 36.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/41

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2007 — Thierry v Commission

(Case F-82/05) (1)

(Officials - Promotion - Non-inclusion in the list of officials promoted - 2004 promotion procedure - Priority points - Merit - Length of service - Admissibility)

(2007/C 96/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Michel Thierry (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented initially by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, and subsequently by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the list of officials promoted to Grade A5 under the 2004 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include the applicant's name.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 27 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-327/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/41

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Chassagne v Commission

(Case F-39/06) (1)

(Officials - Remuneration - Annual travel expenses - Provisions applicable to officials originating from French overseas departments - Article 8 of Annex VII to the amended Staff Regulations - Application manifestly unfounded in law)

(2007/C 96/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and I. Sulce, Agents)

Re:

Application for, first, an acknowledgement that Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 May 2004, is illegal and consequently inapplicable to the applicant for the purpose of establishing the sum of annual travel expenses to be reimbursed and, secondly, an application for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 53.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/42

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Kerstens v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-59/06) (1)

(Career development report - 2004 appraisal procedure - Infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Infringement of the GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations)

(2007/C 96/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

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

Re:

Annulment, first, of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 July 2005 adopting the applicant's CDE for 2004 and, second, of the express decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 February 2006 dismissing the applicant's complaint No R/769/05.

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 165, 15.7.2006, p. 34.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/42

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 March 2007 — Manté v Council

(Case F-87/06) (1)

(Staff cases - Pay - Installation allowance - National expert on secondment who has been appointed an official - Recovery of sum not due - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2007/C 96/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Manté (Woluw-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the Council's Appointing Authority of 22 August 2005 refusing to grant the applicant, a former national expert on secondment who became an official of the European Communities, the installation allowance and ordering its recovery, and secondly, an application for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | the Council of the European Union, in addition to bearing its own costs, is ordered to pay half those of Mr Manté. |
| --- | --- |

2.

the Council of the European Union, in addition to bearing its own costs, is ordered to pay half those of Mr Manté.

---

(1)  OJ C 237 of 30.9.2006, p. 19.

---

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/42

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 April 2007 — L v European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

(Case F-13/07) (1)

(Staff case - Invalidity - Invalidity Committee - Refusal to convene - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2007/C 96/89)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 31 March 2006 refusing the applicant's request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application 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 82, 14.4.2007, p. 56.

---

Corrigenda

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/43

---

Corrigendum to the notice to the Official Journal in Case T-127/05

(
  ‘Official Journal of the European Union ’C 56, 10 March 2007, p. 28
  )

(2007/C 96/90)

The notice to the OJ in Case T-127/05 Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council is to be read as follows:

‘Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2007 — Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council

(Case T-127/05) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 - Fisheries - Fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 - Persons directly and individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 56/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lootus Teine Osaühing (Lootus) (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: T. Sild and K. Martin, Lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, F. Ruggeri Laderchi and A. Westerhof Lörefflerova, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Banks, Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment in part of, first, the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos 2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 1) and, second, Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 4), in so far as those provisions concern the fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

| 3. | The Commission shall bear its own costs.’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission shall bear its own costs.’

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

1

---