title: Case C-283/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) made on 23 May 2016 — M. S. v P. S.

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) made on 23 May 2016 — M. S. v P. S.
   (Case C-283/16)
   (2016/C 279/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M. S.

      Defendant: P. S.

      Questions referred

               i.

               In circumstances where a maintenance creditor wishes to enforce in one Member State an order which has been obtained in another Member State, does Chapter IV of EU Regulation 4/2009 (1) (the Maintenance Regulation) confer upon her a right to make an application for enforcement directly to the competent authority of the requested state?

               ii.

               If the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, should Chapter IV of the Maintenance Regulations be interpreted so as to mean that each member state is obliged to provide a procedure or mechanism such as will enable the right to be recognised?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations

      OJ L 7, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2005 in Case C-15/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 75/439/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Priority to processing by regeneration)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 27 January 2005
   in Case C-15/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/439/EEC - Disposal of waste oils - Priority to processing by regeneration)
   (2005/C 82/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-15/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 14 January 2003 – Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Grunwald and M. Konstantinidis) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl, M. Hauer and E. Wolfslehner) supported by: Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji and by M. Demetriou) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where the technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 08.03.2003.


title: Case F-80/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — CZ v ESMA (Civil service — Recruitment — Temporary agents — Extension of the probation period — Dismissal at the end of the probation period)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — CZ v ESMA
   (Case F-80/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Recruitment - Temporary agents - Extension of the probation period - Dismissal at the end of the probation period))
   (2015/C 034/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CZ (represented by: O. Kress and S. Bassis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) (represented by: R. Vasileva, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Firstly, annulment of the decision to extend the applicant’s probation period and of the subsequent decision to dismiss him and, secondly, application for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Securities and Markets Authority to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CZ.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013, p. 51.


title: Case T-176/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/53

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission
   (Case T-176/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 294/64)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH (Georgsmarienhütte, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and C. Howdle, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               4.

               Georgsmarienhütte GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               5.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-129/04: Action brought on 1 April 2004 by Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/6

         Action brought on 1 April 2004 by Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-129/04)
   (2004/C 168/11)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG, Unterhaching (Germany), represented by H.P. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2004;

               —

               order the defendant Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark sought:

               A three dimensional mark in the shape of a plastic bottle – Application No 2579381.

               Goods or services:

               Goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 (inter alia, tomato pulp, milk and milk products, mayonnaises, ketchup, fruit drinks).

               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

               Refusal by the examiner to register the mark.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Articles 74(1) and 45 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), infringement of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, insofar as the defendant Office stated that it is not bound by earlier registrations in Member States, and infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

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


title: Case C-229/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer CropScience AG (Patent law — Plant-protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Directive 91/414/EEC — Supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products — Grant of a certificate for a product which had obtained a provisional marketing authorisation)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer CropScience AG
   (Case C-229/09) (1)

   (Patent law - Plant-protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Directive 91/414/EEC - Supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products - Grant of a certificate for a product which had obtained a provisional marketing authorisation)
   2011/C 13/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hogan Lovells International LLP

      Defendant: Bayer CropScience AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — Conditions governing the acquisition of a supplementary protection certificate — Possibility of having such a certificate issued on the basis of a previous marketing authorisation issued pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC — Active substance iodosulfuron

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products must be interpreted as not precluding a supplementary protection certificate from being issued for a plant protection product in respect of which a valid marketing authorisation has been granted pursuant to Article 8(1) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.09.2009.


title: Case T-353/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2013 — Event v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS — Earlier national word mark Event — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2013 — Event v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS)
   (Case T-353/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS - Earlier national word mark Event - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 129/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Event Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: CBT Comunicación Multimedia (Getxo, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2011 (Case R 939/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Event Holding GmbH & Co. KG and CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Event Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-566/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 5 November 2013 — Jorge Ítalo Assis dos Santos v Banco de Portugal

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 5 November 2013 — Jorge Ítalo Assis dos Santos v Banco de Portugal
   (Case C-566/13)
   2014/C 31/02
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jorge Ítalo Assis dos Santos

      Defendant: Banco de Portugal

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must a rule of national law requiring the central bank of the Member State in question to suspend payment of the 13th and 14th month pay to retired employees of that bank be interpreted as contrary to Article 130 TFEU, in so far as it involves interference by the Government (that is to say, the central administration) in the bank’s decision-making powers with regard to its staff policy, in breach of the principal of the autonomy and independence of central banks?

               2.

               Must a rule of national law requiring amounts corresponding to bonuses, payment of which is suspended, to be transferred to an organ of indirect state administration acting under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, whose revenue and expenditure are reported in the state budget, be interpreted as being contrary to Article 123 TFEU, in so far as it infringes the principle prohibiting monetary financing of Member States by central banks?

               3.

               Does the fact that the suspension of payment of the 13th and 14th month pay is restricted to retired workers and does not affect workers in active service infringe the principle of equality, having regard to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (1)

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-235/12 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2012 against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2012 in Case T-594/11 H-Holding AG v European Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/22

         Appeal brought on 14 May 2012 against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2012 in Case T-594/11 H-Holding AG v European Commission
   (Case C-235/12 P)
   2013/C 114/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: H-Holding AG (represented by: R. Závodný, advokát)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   The Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 28 February 2013 and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-333/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2011 — Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistieke Dienstverleners (Febetra) v Belgische Staat

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2011 — Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistieke Dienstverleners (Febetra) v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-333/11)
   2011/C 269/60
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistieke Dienstverleners (Febetra)

      Respondent: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 37 of the TIR Convention and the second subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of an official finding as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed, and of any proof to the contrary furnished within the specified period by the guarantor, the Member State where the existence of the offence or irregularity is detected is deemed to be the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed, even if it is possible, on the basis of the place where the TIR carnet was accepted and where the goods were sealed, without further investigation, to ascertain via which Member State situated at the external border of the Community the goods were unlawfully introduced into the Community?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, must the same Articles, in conjunction with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (2) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, be interpreted as meaning that the Member State situated at the external border of the Community where the goods were unlawfully introduced is also competent to collect the excise duty when the goods have in the meantime been taken to another Member State, where they were discovered, confiscated and forfeited?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.


18.12.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 366/33
       Removal from the register of Case T-198/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-97/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/76)                                                         (1999/C 366/79)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   By order of 9 July 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
Case T-198/96: Christine Dalby v Commission of the European              ordered the removal from the register of Case T-97/98:
Communities.                                                             Maurizio Gastaldello v Committee of the Regions of the
                                                                         European Union.
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-218/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/77)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-78/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/80)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-218/96: Paul Hodson v Commission of the European                  By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the First
Communities.                                                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-78/99: Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                             Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 174 of 19.6.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case T-59/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/78)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/81)
By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                   (Language of the case: French)
the register of Case T-59/98: Honeywell Inc. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 22 October 1999, the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
(1) OJ No C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                            the removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R: Luigia
                                                                         Dricot-Daniele, Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case C-239/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau
   (Case C-239/05)
   (2005/C 217/50)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of The Court of Appeal, Brussels of 30 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between BVBA Management Training en Consultancy and Benelux-Merkenbureau on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the trade mark authority required, after its examination of all relevant facts and circumstances concerning an absolute ground of refusal, to state in its provisional and in its definitive decision on the application its conclusion in regard to each of the goods and services separately in respect of which trade mark protection is sought?

               2.

               May the relevant facts and circumstances to be taken into account by the adjudicating authority in the event of an appeal against the decision of the trade mark authority be different as a result of a lapse of time between the two dates on which the decisions are made or must the adjudicating authority only take account of such facts and circumstances as were available at the moment when the trade mark authority made its decision?

               3.

               Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice in the Postkantoor
                   (1) judgment preclude national legislation in regard to the competence of the adjudicating authority from being construed as meaning that that authority is prevented from taking account of any alteration in the relevant facts and circumstances or from ruling on the distinctive character of the mark for each of the goods and services in themselves?

      (1)  Case C-363/99, Koninklijke KPN Nederland, dated 12.02.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2002 in Case T-89/00: Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH v Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping — Termination of proceedings — Principle of equal treatment — Initial investigation in one procedure coinciding with a review in another procedure — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Regulation terminating anti-dumping procedures — Retroactivity)

text:
C 289/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23.11.2002
Solicitor, and B. Van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyer, with an                  mantopoulos, J. J. Gutiérrez Gisbert and J. Branton, lawyers,
address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European                with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
Union (Agents: J. Carbery, M. Sims and J. Monteiro and                      European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. M. Berrisch),
F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by Commission of the                     supported by Commission of the European Communities
European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver, T. Christoforou and                (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany): Application for annul-
K. Fitch), by Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch, T. Pynnä            ment of the second paragraph of Article 3 of Council
and E. Bygglin), by Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and                 Regulation (EC) No 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating
L. Nordling), and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and                    the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill): Application for annul-                large aluminium electrolytic capacitors originating in Japan,
ment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December                   the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2000 L 22, p. 1), the
1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of                Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives              sition), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung,
in feedingstuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4), the Court of First                  P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; F. Erlbacher, Legal Secretary,           2002, in which it has ruled:
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the action;
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                defendant;
2.     Orders Alpharma to bear its own costs and to pay those
       incurred by the Council, including those relating to the
       proceedings for interim relief;                                      3.     Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
3.     Orders the Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
       of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
       Northern Ireland to bear their own costs, both in the main
       proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.
( 1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 September 2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            in Case T-113/00: DuPont Teijin Films Luxembourg SA
                                                                            and Others v Commission of the European Communi-
                       of 12 September 2002                                                                  ties ( 1)
in Case T-89/00: Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH                        (Action for annulment — Generalised Tariff Preference
              v Council of the European Union (1)                           System (GSP) — Refusal of request to open investigation —
                                                                            Challengeable act — Misinterpretation of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 2820/98 — Failure to state reasons)
(Anti-dumping — Termination of proceedings — Principle
of equal treatment — Initial investigation in one procedure
coinciding with a review in another procedure —                                                       (2002/C 289/43)
Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Regulation
    terminating anti-dumping procedures — Retroactivity)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2002/C 289/42)
                    (Language of the case: English)                         In Case T-113/00, DuPont Teijin Films Luxembourg SA,
                                                                            established in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), Mitsubishi Polyester
                                                                            Film GmbH, established in Wiesbaden (Germany), Toray
                                                                            Plastics Europe SA, established in Saint-Maurice-de-Beynost
In Case T-89/00, Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH,                       (France), represented by I. Forrester QC and J. Killick, Barrister,
established in Nuremberg (Germany), represented by K. Ada-                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of


title: Case T-274/01: Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Valmont Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 3/46                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.1.2002
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Valmont Neder-                     Lastly, the applicant asserts that the Commission misused its
land B.V. against the Commission of the European Com-                   powers when assessing the value of the land at the time of the
                            munities                                    purchase and when assessing the element of State aid relating
                                                                        to what the applicant maintains is a car park used by the
                                                                        public, and concerning the sums charged by way of interest
                         (Case T-274/01)                                on the alleged State aid.
                          (2002/C 3/79)
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Valmont                                  Moreno against European Parliament
Nederland B.V., established at Maarheeze (Netherlands), rep-
resented by André Van Landuyt, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                                (Case T-275/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (2002/C 3/80)
(1) annul Decision No C 2001 2231 of the Commission of                                    (Language of the case: French)
      18 July 2001;
(2) order the Commission, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules
      of Procedure, to pay all the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno, residing in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Berlin, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
According to the contested decision of the Commission, the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant has received State aid in the form of a reduced
purchase price for the building land on which the applicant
now maintains its establishment in the Netherlands and a                —    annul the decision of the President of the European
subsidy for the installation of a car park on it. The Commission             Parliament, contained in a letter of 19 July 2001, rejecting
is demanding that the aid received be repaid.                                the applicant’s request and thus confirming the decision
                                                                             of the European Parliament no longer to call upon the
                                                                             services of freelance interpreters who have reached the
The applicant maintains that, in adopting its decision, the                  age of 65 years, as in the case of the applicant;
Commission has infringed Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
According to the applicant, the Commission has not shown
that the applicant benefited from an aid measure in the                 —    annul the inter-institutional decision referred to by the
purchase of the building land. It claims that that purchase took             Secretary General of the European Parliament in the letter
place on market terms and conditions. Moreover, any aid                      of 5 March 2001;
which may have been received had no effect on competition
within the common market or on trade between Member
                                                                        —    consequently, acknowledge the applicant’s right to con-
States.
                                                                             tinue to provide her services as a freelance interpreter,
                                                                             either in the service of the European Parliament or any
                                                                             other Community institution, beyond the age of 65;
The applicant also pleads infringement of essential procedural
requirements, more specifically of the right to a fair hearing.
According to the applicant, the Commission relies on a report           —    order compensation for the material and non-material
on the value of the land which was drawn up previously                       damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally assessed
without any involvedment on the part of the applicant.                       at one euro;
Likewise, after the procedure was opened pursuant to
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, its observations were not taken
into account.                                                           —    order the defendant to pay all the costs.


19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 397/27
The Commission considers that that system, resulting                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
from the legislation in force, is capable of hindering,
directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-
Community trade in petroleum products.                              Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                    directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                    upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                    Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty,
It contends, furthermore, that the Hellenic Republic
                                                                    Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
cannot rely on Article 36 of the EC Treaty as a
                                                                    whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
justification. A Member State may invoke Article 36 in
                                                                    obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
order to justify a measure having equivalent effect to a
                                                                    action taken by thge institutions of the Community. The
quantitative restriction on imports only if no other
                                                                    abovementioned provisions require the Member States to
measure, less restrictive from the point of the view of the
                                                                    make their legislation consistent with Community
free movement of goods, is capable of achieving the same
                                                                    directives within the periods which those directives lay
objective. The objective of maintaining security of supply,
                                                                    down. A Member State may not invoke provisions,
which the Greek authorities state is the objective pursued
                                                                    practices or circumstances existing in its legal order in
by them, can be achieved by measures which are less
                                                                    order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and
restrictive of the free movement of goods.
                                                                    time-limits laid down by Community directives. It is not
                                                                    disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                    measures to comply with Directive 94/47/EC. The time-
The Commission thus considers that the contested Greek              limit laid down by Article 12 of that directive expired on
legislation constitutes a measure which has equivalent              29 April 1997 without the Hellenic Republic having
effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Article 30        adopted the laws, regulations and administrative
of the Treaty, and cannot be justified on any of the                provisions necessary to comply with the directive or
grounds set out in Article 36 of the Treaty, and in                 having notified them to the Commission.
particular not on the basis of security of supply.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
Action brought on 10 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic                          Removal from the register of Case C-199/97 (1)
                           Republic                                                         (98/C 397/48)
                        (Case C-401/98)
                         (98/C 397/47)                              By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-199/97 (reference for
                                                                    a preliminary ruling from the Royal Court of Jersey):
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    Emidio Marco Rios v. His Excellency the Lieutenant
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    Governor of Jersey.
on 10 November 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service          (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-80/98 (1)
Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                                   (98/C 397/49)
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                    By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
     the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-80/98 (reference for a
     relating to the pourchase of the right to use
                                                                    preliminary ruling from the Sù- og Handelsret): 3Com
     immovable properties on a timeshare basis, or by not
                                                                    Corporation v. Bluecom Danmark A/S and KISS Nordic
     notifying them to the Commission, the Hellenic
                                                                    A/S.
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations udner that
     directive;
                                                                    (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-421/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 13 September 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Frede Damgaard

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 13 September 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Frede Damgaard
   (Case C-421/07)
   (2007/C 269/60)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Vestre Landsret
   Party to the main proceedings
   Frede Damgaard
   Question referred
   Is Article 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1), as subsequently amended, to be interpreted as meaning that dissemination by a third party of information about a medicinal product, including in particular information about the medicinal product's therapeutic or prophylactic properties, is to be understood as constituting advertising, even though the third party in question is acting on his own initiative and completely independently, de jure and de facto, of the manufacturer and the seller?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 October 1998 in Case T-290/94 (92): Ford James France, formerly Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs) (1999/C 1/25)

text:
4.1.1999              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 1/13
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and Karel Johannes
                      of 30 October 1998                             Defares, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue
in Case T-290/94 (92): Ford James France, formerly                   Goethe, supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the European                         represented by Marc Fierstra, Legal Adviser, acting as
                        Communities (1)                              Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo, against Council
                      (Taxation of costs)
                                                                     of the European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen
                         (1999/C 1/25)                               Huber and Guus Houttuin), supported by Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn),
                                                                     Kingdom of Spain, represented by Luis PeÂrez de Ayala
               (Language of the case: French)                        Becerril, Abogado del Estado, of the Community Legal
                                                                     Affairs Department, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 Rue
In Case T-290/94 (92): Ford James France, formerly
                                                                     Emmanuel Servais, French Republic, represented by
Kaysersberg SA, established at Kunheim (France),
                                                                     Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Head of Subdirectorate in the
represented by Dominique Voillemot and Jacques-Philippe
                                                                     Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
Gunther, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Claude Chavance, Foreign Affairs Secretary, acting as
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Goethe,     against     Commission of the            European
                                                                     French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II, and Italian
Communities (Agents: initially Francisco GonzaÂlez Diaz,
                                                                     Republic, represented by Umberto Colesanti, acting as
of its Legal Service, and GeÂraud de Bergues, a national
                                                                     Agent, assisted by Francesca Quadri, Avvocato dello Stato,
official on secondment to the Commission, subsequently
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
Giuliano Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and Guy
                                                                     Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde Ð application for
Charrier, a national official on secondment to the
                                                                     annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of
Commission), supported by Procter & Gamble GmbH,
                                                                     17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
established at Schwalbach (Germany), represented by
                                                                     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe
                                                                     countries and territories (OJ L 51, 21.2.1997, p. 1) Ð the
Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, with an address
                                                                     Courts of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger
                                                                     M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H.
and Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill Ð application for
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 November 1998, the
taxation of the costs to be paid by the applicant to the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
intervener following the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 27 November 1997 in Case T-290/94
Kaysersberg v. Commission [1997] ECR II-2137 Ð the                   1. The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in
Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended                          Case T-41/97 Antillean Rice Mills v. Council, in order
Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                  that the Court of Justice may rule on the applications
C. W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A. W. H. Meij and M. Vilaras,                  for annulment.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 October
1998 in which it:
                                                                     2. Costs are reserved.
Fixes the total amount of costs to be paid by Ford James
France to Procter & Gamble GmbH at BEF 1 500 000.                    (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 316, 12.11.1994.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 October 1998
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     in Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v.
                    of 16 November 1998                                      Commission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-41/97: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Council of               (Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                    the European Union (1)                           Application for reclassification in grade Ð Objection of
                  (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                           inadmissibility Ð Material new fact Ð Admissibility)
                         (1999/C 1/26)                                                       (1999/C 1/27)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case T-41/97, Antillean Rice Mills NV, established in             In Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal, an
Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by Winfred                official of the Commission of the European Communities,


title: Case T-648/14: Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALTOOLS)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/20

         Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALTOOLS)
   (Case T-648/14)
   2014/C 380/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myer Lake Circle Clearwater, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2014 given in Case R 398/2014-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in white, black and green containing the verbal element ‘DUALTOOLS’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 8 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 27  496

      Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-315/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Ercros v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark TAI CROS — Earlier national word marks CROS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA CROS and ERCROS — Earlier national figurative marks CROS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Ercros v OHIM
   (Case T-315/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark TAI CROS - Earlier national word marks CROS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA CROS and ERCROS - Earlier national figurative marks CROS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 6/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Ercros, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Thierie, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Degussa GmbH, formerly Degussa AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Schäffler, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2006 (Case R 29/2006-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Ercros, SA and Degussa GmbH.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ercros, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-569/13: Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/25

         Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)
   (Case T-569/13)
   2014/C 24/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 August 2013 given in Case R 1561/2012-4;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in red, gold, white and black containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO Espresso Napoletano’ for a range of goods and services in Classes 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 037 933

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark No 291 655 for the word ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known mark in Spain ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case T-257/17: Action brought on 3 May 2017 — RE v Commission

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/33

         Action brought on 3 May 2017 — RE v Commission
   (Case T-257/17)
   (2017/C 221/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: RE (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the annulment of the Security Directorate’s implied decision tacitly rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 20 January 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant a fair and equitable compensation for non-material damages from the unlawful refusal to treat his access to documents application in violation of the provision of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1); and,

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant in the current proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   With the present application, the applicant asks for the annulment of the aforementioned contested implied decision for two reasons: firstly the failure of the contested decision to state reasons as regards the non-disclosure of the 15 documents requested by the applicant, which were not mentioned in the decision of 22 December 2016 that rejected the applicant’s initial request for access to documents; and secondly, the lack of, or, in any case, the erroneous justification for the non-disclosure of the other documents, if it were to be considered that the reasoning of the decision of 22 December 2016 rejecting the applicant’s initial request for access is incorporated in the contested implied decision.
   Finally, the applicant requests the award of appropriate compensation for the moral damage he incurred, which stemmed from the administration’s persistent delays and the unlawful refusal to grant him access to the documents in question, in violation of the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 2001, p. 43)


title: Case C-177/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Marek Marszałkowski v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for Community figurative mark with the word elements ‘Walichnowy’ and ‘Marko’  — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word MAR-KO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/5

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Marek Marszałkowski v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-177/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for Community figurative mark with the word elements ‘Walichnowy’ and ‘Marko’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word MAR-KO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))
   2014/C 184/06
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Marek Marszałkowski (represented by: C. Sadkowski, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent), Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co.

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 February 2013 in Case T-159/11 Marszalkowski v OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4) which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘Mar-Ko’ in respect of goods in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Marek Marszałkowski is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20. 7. 2013.


title: Case C-75/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014  — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez
   (Case C-75/14)
   2014/C 135/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ávila

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.

      Defendants: Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?

               2.

               Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?

               3.

               Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 … contravene … Directive 93/13/EEC …, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 …?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-226/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l’économie de l’industrie et de l’emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, Société VFE Commerce, Société IDTGV, société par actions simplifiée

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l’économie de l’industrie et de l’emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, Société VFE Commerce, Société IDTGV, société par actions simplifiée
   (Case C-226/11)
   2011/C 211/32
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Expedia Inc.

      Defendants: Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l’économie de l’industrie et de l’emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, Société VFE Commerce, Société IDTGV, société par actions simplifiée

      Question referred

   Should Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) be interpreted as precluding proceedings being brought and penalties being imposed by a national competition authority, on the grounds of both Article 101(1) TFEU and the national law of competition, in respect of a practice under agreements, decisions of associations of undertakings or concerted action that may affect trade between Member States, but which does not reach the thresholds specified by the European Commission in its notice of 22 December 2001 on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (de minimis) (OJ 2001 C 368, p. 13)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case F-26/15: Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/44

         Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-26/15)
   (2015/C 127/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s application to pay him the installation allowance, following his move from Yemen to Brussels, where his wife, from whom he is separated, lives and application to order the defendant to pay the applicant that installation allowance plus interest.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of 15 April 2014;

               —

               As necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 November 2014;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the installation allowance equal to one month’s basic salary plus interest calculated from the dates on which those sums were due under Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case F-44/14: Action brought on 16 May 2014  — ZZ v Council

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/46

         Action brought on 16 May 2014 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-44/14)
   2014/C 212/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Council not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 and, secondly, the grant of damages and interest for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision not to promote her to grade AD 13 as is evident from the list published on 26 September 2013 and the Appointing Authority’s response to the complaint dated 7 February 2014;

               —

               Grant an amount of EUR 10  000 on the basis of the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings.


title: Case F-28/12: Action brought on 29 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/31

         Action brought on 29 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-28/12)
   2012/C 174/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request, first, to remove a sentence from the medical report of 28 February 2008, second, to send the report thus amended to the doctor chosen by the applicant and, third, to remove in general from the file on the work-related injury any information relating the claim, which the applicant maintains is incorrect, that the powder with which the applicant came into contact was ultimately shown to be the white dust of a copy of a newspaper to which the applicant subscribed.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s claims set out in the request of 23 December 2010;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 10 July 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 23 December 2010;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-414/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/20

      Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Drex Technologies v Council
      (Case T-414/16)
      (2016/C 364/18)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council.


title: Case T-94/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/64

         Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-94/10)
   2010/C 113/96
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany), Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium), Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain), Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo- Vizcaya, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (ED/68/2009) to identify anthracene oil (CAS Number 90640-80-5) (‘anthracene oil’) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (‘REACH’), in accordance with Article 59 REACH.
   On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants’ attention by means of an ECHA’s press release, the anthracene oil was included in the list of 14 chemical substances of the Candidate List of Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the REACH. The reasons stated in the contested act for the identification of anthracene oil as a SVHC are that the substance is carcinogenic and also persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (‘PBT’) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (‘vPvB’) in accordance with criteria set out in Annex XIII to the REACH.
   The applicants consider that the contested act infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of SVHCs under the REACH and put forward four pleas in law in support of their application.
   First, they argue that the decision is unlawful as it was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements. In this regard, the applicants submit that the dossier on which the contested act was based did not contain any information on alternative substances in breach of Article 59(3) and Annex XV of the REACH. Further they contend that the defendant materially amended the proposal to identify anthracene oil as a SVHC by adding Article 57(a) and (b) as grounds for that identification without having any competency to do so, in breach of Article 59(5) and (7) REACH.
   Second, the applicants submit that the contested act infringes the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment since it discriminates against anthracene oil with regard to other comparable substances without any objective justification.
   Third, they claim that the ECHA committed a manifest error of assessment by identifying the anthracene oil as a PBT and vPvB substance on the basis of the properties of its constituents which finds no basis in the REACH.
   Fourth, the applicants argue that the contested act infringes the principle of proportionality since the contested act is disproportionate in view if the choice of measures available to the defendant and the disadvantages caused in relation to the aims pursued.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)


title: Case C-451/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helmut Müller GmbH v Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben (Procedures for the award of public works contracts — Public works contracts — Concept — Sale by a public body of land on which the purchaser intends subsequently to carry out works — Works corresponding to a municipal authority’s urban-planning objectives)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helmut Müller GmbH v Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben
   (Case C-451/08) (1)

   (Procedures for the award of public works contracts - Public works contracts - Concept - Sale by a public body of land on which the purchaser intends subsequently to carry out works - Works corresponding to a municipal authority’s urban-planning objectives)
   2010/C 134/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Helmut Müller GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben

      Intervening parties: Gut Spascher Sand Immobilien GmbH, Municipality of Wildeshausen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b) and (3) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Concepts of ‘public works contract’ and ‘public works concession’ — Obligation to put out to tender the sale of land by a third party in circumstances where the acquirer subsequently has to carry out on that land works corresponding to town planning objectives defined by a local authority and a draft of which has been approved by that authority since before the conclusion of the sale contract.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘public works contracts’, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, does not require that the works which are the subject of the contract be materially or physically carried out for the contracting authority, provided that they are carried out for that authority’s immediate economic benefit. The latter condition is not satisfied by the exercise by that contracting authority of regulatory urban-planning powers.

               2.

               The concept of ‘public works contracts’, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18, requires that the contractor assume a direct or indirect obligation to carry out the works which are the subject of the contract and that that obligation be legally enforceable in accordance with the procedural rules laid down by national law.

               3.

               The ‘requirements specified by the contracting authority’, within the meaning of the third variant set out in Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18, cannot consist in the mere fact that a public authority examines certain building plans submitted to it or takes a decision in the exercise of its regulatory urban-planning powers.

               4.

               In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there is no public works concession within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2004/18.

               5.

               In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, the provisions of Directive 2004/18 do not apply to a situation in which one public authority sells land to an undertaking, even though another public authority intends to award a works contract in respect of that land but has not yet formally decided to award that contract.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 September 2004 in Case C-366/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle): Gerd Gschoßmann v Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Süd (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 and (EC) No 1251/1999 — Support system for producers of arable crops — Compensatory payments for areas down to arable crops and subject to set-aside — Exclusion for land under permanent crops — Definition)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 16 September 2004
   in Case C-366/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle): Gerd Gschoßmann v Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Süd (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 and (EC) No 1251/1999 - Support system for producers of arable crops - Compensatory payments for areas down to arable crops and subject to set-aside - Exclusion for land under permanent crops - Definition)
   (2004/C 273/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-366/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany), made by decision of 30 September 2002, received at the Court on 14 October 2002, in the proceedings between Gerd Gschoßmann and Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Süd — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting for the President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops and Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops must be interpreted as meaning that, for land under permanent crops to be excluded from compensatory payments, there is no requirement that the land has been cultivated, and in particular that insecticides have been used or crops harvested.

               2.

               Article 9 of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/1999 must be interpreted as meaning that the land ceases to be under permanent crops, in the case of apple production, once the apple trees have been felled, even if they have not been removed. However, the mere decision to fell the trees, without that decision being put into practice, does not mean that the land ceases to be under permanent crops.

               3.

               Article 9 of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/1999 must be interpreted as meaning that land which has ceased to be under permanent crops must be regarded as being used for non-agricultural purposes if is shown that it is not intended for the production of other plants or animals.

      (1)  OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-31/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 January 2009 — Bolbol Nawras v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 January 2009 — Bolbol Nawras v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-31/09)
   (2009/C 82/28)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Fővárosi Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bolbol Nawras

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   Questions referred
   For the purposes of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1)

               1.

               Must someone be regarded as a person receiving the protection and assistance of a United Nations agency merely by virtue of the fact he is entitled to assistance or protection or is it also necessary for him actually to avail himself of that protection or assistance?

               2.

               Does cessation of the agency's protection or assistance mean residence outside the agency's area of operations, cessation of the agency and cessation of the possibility of receiving the agency's protection or assistance or, possibly, an objective obstacle such that the person entitled thereto is unable to avail himself of that protection or assistance?

               3.

               Do the benefits of this directive mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion in the scope ratione personae of the directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).


title: Case C-470/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Contracts falling below the threshold laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Applicability — Certain cross-border interest — Grounds for exclusion from a tendering procedure — Exclusion of an economic operator having committed an infringement of national competition rules, established by a judgment given not more than five years ago — Lawfulness — Proportionality)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/10

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság
   (Case C-470/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Contracts falling below the threshold laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Applicability - Certain cross-border interest - Grounds for exclusion from a tendering procedure - Exclusion of an economic operator having committed an infringement of national competition rules, established by a judgment given not more than five years ago - Lawfulness - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 065/14)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt

      Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not preclude the application of national legislation excluding the participation in a tendering procedure of an economic operator who has committed an infringement of competition law, established by a judicial decision having the force of res judicata, for which a fine was imposed.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case C-95/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 13 February 2003 in the case of Mr Vincenzo Piliego against Centre Public d'Aide Sociale de Bruxelles, C.P.A.S.

text:
26.4.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/27
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
of the European Communities against the Council of the                     Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 13 Feb-
                         European Union                                    ruary 2003 in the case of Mr Vincenzo Piliego against
                                                                                Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles, C.P.A.S.
                           (Case C-94/03)
                          (2003/C 101/45)                                                            (Case C-95/03)
An action against the Council of the European Union was                                             (2003/C 101/46)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Lena Ström
and Elisabetta Righini, acting as agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
                                                                           de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 13 February 2003,
—     annul Council Decision of 19 December 2002 approving,                received at the Court Registry on 4 March 2003, for a
      on behalf of the European Community, the Rotterdam                   preliminary ruling in the case of Mr Vincenzo Piliego against
      Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for               Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles, C.P.A.S. on the
      certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in inter-                 following questions:
      national trade (1); and
—     order the Council to pay the costs.                                  1.     Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October
                                                                                1968 ( 1) to be interpreted as applying to a national of a
                                                                                Member State who resides in another Member State in
                                                                                order to seek employment there, who is housed in a
                                                                                hostel approved by the public authorities where he
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   performs genuine and effective work in return for board
                                                                                and lodging as part of a programme of rehabilitation by
                                                                                work arranged by that institution, and who applies to the
The Commission’s request for annulment of the Decision is                         social assistance services of the host State for a social
founded on the violation of the Treaty resulting from the                         benefit under a non-contributory system guaranteeing
erroneous choice of legal basis. The question of the legal basis                  minimum financial means of subsistence?
for the conclusion of the agreement cannot be regarded as
purely formal in nature. Rather, the choice between
Articles 133 and 175 EC has important implications for the
division of competence between the Community and its                       2.     In the alternative, is Community law, and especially
Member States. As the Court has stated repeatedly, the                            Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC, to be interpreted as
Community’s competence in the field of trade is exclusive in                      meaning that notwithstanding the restrictions imposed
nature. This exclusivity is indispensable in order to ensure a                    by the domestic legislation of the host State, a citizen of
coherent and effective defence of the Community’s interest in                     the Union lawfully residing in a Member State of which
the field of international trade. In contrast, as follows from the                he is not a national is entitled, on the same conditions as
second subparagraph of Article 174(4) EC, the Community’s                         nationals of the host State, to social benefits under a non-
external competencies in the field of the environment are                         contributory system guaranteeing minimum financial
concurrent with those of the Member States. The choice of the                     means of subsistence? What if the host State decides to
legal basis has also consequences with regard to the procedures                   terminate the residence permit of such European citizen
for the adoption of the Community act.                                            because he does not have adequate resources to avoid
                                                                                becoming a burden on its social assistance system?
By basing its Decision concerning the conclusion of the PIC
Convention on Article 175(1) rather than Article 133 EC, the
Council has therefore violated the exclusive competence of the             (1 ) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
Community for the conclusion of the PIC Convention.                             on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
                                                                                L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).
( 1) OJ L 63 of 6.3.2003, p. 27.