title: Removal from the register of Case T-188/94

text:
24 . 6 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 159/29
— annul the decision of 20 July 1994 drawing up the                          Removal from the register of Case T-445/93 ( )
     applicant's staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 and                                     ( 95/C 159/60 )
     all subsequent decisions adopted on the basis of that
     report,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of
     10 February 1995 expressly rejecting the applicant's             By order of 6 April 1 995 the President of the Fourth
    complaint, and                                                    Chamber (extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              from the register of Case T-445/93 : Eastern Electricity pic,
                                                                      East Midlands Electricity pic, Electricity Association
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Services Limited, London Electricity pic, Manweb pic,
The applicant, an official of the Court of Auditors of grade          Midlands Electricity pic, National Power pic, Northern
A 5 and President of the Staff Committee of that institution          Electric pic, Norweb pic, PowerGen pic, Seeboard pic,
at the material time, complains that the appointing                   Southern Electric pic, South Wales Electricity pic, South
authority failed to observe certain principles of law when            Western Electricity pic, The National Grid Company pic
drawing up his staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 .             and Yorkshire Electricity Group pic v . Council of the
                                                                      European Union and Commission of the European
He argues that it was contrary to Article 43 of the Staff             Communities .
Regulations and general implementing provisions for his
staff report to have been drawn up by the head of his original        f 1 ) OJ No C 57, 4 . 3 . 1992 .
department when, during the material time, he had been
placed at the disposal of the Staff Committee on a full-time
basis .
Moreover, since the general implementing provisions
provide that the Secretary-General is, in the event of an                      Removal from the register of Case T-8/94 H
appeal, competent only in respect of those officials assessed                                       95/C 159/61 )
who are directly under the authority of the director of a
preparatory group, which is not the case of the Staff
Committee , it is contrary to those provisions for his                                (Language of tbe case: French)
definitive staff report to have been drawn up by the
Secretary-General .                                                   By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Finally, the applicant stresses the fact that over the period in      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
question his immediate superior could not have taken                  T-8/94 : H. v. Commission of the European
account of developments in his merits since his last staff            Communities .
report, given that the duties undertaken by the Staff
Committee form an integral part of the services which                 f 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
officials are required to ensure .
        Removal from the register of Case T-20/93 C )                        Removal from the register of Case T- 1 88/94 ( 1 )
                         ( 95/C 159/59 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/62
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                                       (Language of the case: Frencb)
By order of 5 April 1995 the President of the Third Chamber           By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Second
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-20/93 :               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Willy Seghers v . Council of the European Union.                      T-l 88/94: Nathalie Creste v . Council of the European
                                                                      Union .
(M OJ No C 89 , 31 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-135/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Term CINE ACTION — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 134/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.5.2001
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices                    —    cultural activities; organisation and conducting of shows,
of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, v                           quizzes and musical events and conducting competitions
European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo, H. von Hertzen,                                in the entertainment field, with a view to their broadcast-
D. Moore and D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for                                 ing either at a subsequent time or live on radio or
annulment of the decisions of the Parliament not to appoint the                       television; production of television and radio advertising
applicants to the post of Director-General of the Directorate-                        broadcasts including associated prize game broadcasts;
General for Finance and Financial Control and of the decision                         organising competitions in the entertainment field; organ-
appointing another candidate to that post and, second, for                            ising concerts, theatre events and variety shows, all falling
damages — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                                under Class 41;
composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh
and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment                 —    management and exploitation of copyright and industrial
on 16 January 2001, in which it:                                                      property rights for others; technical consultancy in the
                                                                                field of multimedia, interactive television and Pay TV (in
1.    Dismisses the actions;                                                          so far as included in Class 42); computer programming,
                                                                                including video and computer games, all falling under
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                     Class 42;
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999 and OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.                       2.    Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;
                                                                           3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 31 January 2001
in Case T-135/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(Community trade mark — Term CINE ACTION — Absol-                                                  of 31 January 2001
ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                             No 40/94)                                     in Case T-136/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co v Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                          (2001/C 134/38)                                                          Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          (Community trade mark — Term CINE COMEDY —
                                                                           Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
In Case T-135/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co, established                                                  (EC) No 40/94)
in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by R. Schneider,
Rechtsanwalt, Bremen, with an address for service in Luxem-                                          (2001/C 134/39)
bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and S. Bonne) —                                      (Language of the case: German)
application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case                    In Case T-136/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co, established
R 98/98-3), concerning the registration of the term CINE                   in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by R. Schneider,
ACTION as a Community trade mark — the Court of First                      Rechtsanwalt, Bremen, with an address for service in Luxem-
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,             bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,                and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and S. Bonne) —
in which it:                                                               application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
                                                                           of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and            R 97/98-3), concerning the registration of the term CINE
      Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 98/98-3) in so far as it           COMEDY as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
      concerns the following services:                                     Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,
                                                                           A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
      —    allocation and transfer of rights of access for users of        for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,
           various communication networks, falling under Class 38;         in which it:


1 . 6 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 158/ 11
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            quantity had been compiled correctly and had formed
                                                                        the basis of the purchaser's calculation of the additional
                                                                        levy ?
1 , declare that, by providing that VAT exemption for
      services closely linked to sport or physical education
      applies only to private bodies whose membership fees do           Or does that phrase refer only to the amount derived from
      not exceed a specified amount, the Kingdom of Spain               the figures, whether correct or not, declared by the
      has infringed Article 13 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( m ) of the Sixth VAT       purchaser and forming the basis of the calculation of the
      Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) ( M ;                                    additional levy ?
                                                                        If the first interpretation is correct, the question arises
2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                       whether the entire amount of additional levy lawfully due is
                                                                        payable on the date specified in the Regulation ( at that time
                                                                        30 June ), so that, in the event of part payment resulting from
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the purchaser's figures being too low, the person liable to
                                                                        pay the additional levy ( in Germany the milk producer ) must
The restriction imposed by the Spanish Law on                           pay, from 1 July of that year, interest charged under national
exemptions ( 2 ) does not appear in the wording of the Sixth            law on the balance .
Directive and must therefore be considered to be an
infringement of Article 13 . The Member States cannot make              (') OJ No L 139 , 4 . 6 . 1988 , p . 12 .
the exemption provided for in Article 13 ( m ) subject to
conditions other than those laid down in Article 13 ( 2 ).
Neither does the Spanish VAT legislation observe the aim set
down in the eighth recital of the preamble to the Sixth
Directive, since the imposition of any condition not
provided for in Article 13 is contrary to the aim of drawing
up a common list of exemptions so that the Communities'
own resources may be collected in a uniform manner in all               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
the Member States . The Spanish Law thus infringes not only             Genova — Prima Sezione Civile — by order of that court of
Article 1 3 of the Sixth Directive but also the objectives of the       1 February 1996 in the case of Trinity Alimentari Italia SPA
                                                                                v. Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato
common system of VAT.
                                                                                ( Case C-128/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158/26 )
(') Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977,
      P - 1 ).
( 2 ) Law No 37/ 1992 as amended by Law No 42/1994 .                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova — Prima Sezione Civile — ( District Court, Genoa ,
                                                                        First Civil Section ) of 1 February 1996 , received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 22 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        case of Trinity Alimentari Italia SPA v . Ministero delle
                                                                        Finanze dello Stato on questions identical to those in Joined
                                                                        Cases C-47/95 and others ( M.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 26 March 1996 in the             (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
case of Hartmut Simon v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am
                                Main
                         ( Case C-125 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 158/25 )
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-82/95 (*)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches                                                  ( 96/C 158/27 )
 Finanzgericht ( Finance Court, Hesse ) of 26 March 1996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 April 1996 ,              By order of 9 February 1996 the President of the Fifth
 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hartmut Simon v.                Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Frankfurt am                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
 Main, on the following questions :                                      C-82/95 : Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         v. Hellenic Republic .
 In Article 15 ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
 No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 ( 1 ) is 'levy amount due' to be              (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
 interpreted as the amount of additional levy on milk that
 would be payable if the figures used to determine the levies
 payable on deliveries in excess of the delivery reference


title: Case C-285/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Heinrich Stefan Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Heinrich Stefan Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
   (Case C-285/06)
   (2006/C 237/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heinrich Stefan Schneider

      Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 47(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (1) in conjunction with the fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) and point (B)(3) of Annex VII to that regulation and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that a particular which refers to the production or ageing method or the quality of the wine is permitted only as a regulated ‘optional particular’ in accordance with the fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 under the conditions provided for therein and in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (2), and not as an ‘other particular’ in accordance with point (B)(3) of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999?

               2.

               Is Article 24(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that imitation or evocation exists only if it is in the same language as that of the protected traditional term?

               3.

               Is Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that the traditional terms listed in Annex III are protected only with regard to wines from the same producer Member State as the protected traditional term?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1


|

Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2010 in Case E-10/10 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)

Official Journal C 148 , 19/05/2011 P. 0005 - 0005

		Judgment of the Courtof 10 December 2010in Case E-10/10EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)2011/C 148/05In Case E-10/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Acts referred to at point 1 and at point 1, indent 2, of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications, each as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:The Court hereby:1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;2. orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.--------------------------------------------------


title: Case C-452/00: Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                        (Case C-452/00)                                 —     annul the Commission Decision C(2000) 2754 final of
                                                                              20 September 2000 on State aid put into effect by France
                                                                              in the wine sector;
                         (2001/C 45/23)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Communities on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by J. van Bakel, of the European Law
Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 (1)
      of 29 September 2000 providing for the continued
      application of safeguard measures for imports from the
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;                                 —     The Commission was wrong to base itself, in the contest-
                                                                              ed       decision,     on      Commission        Regulation
                                                                              No 1493/2000 (1). The aid was notified in February
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
                                                                              1999 under Regulation No 822/87 (2). Although the
      ings.
                                                                              Commission decision was adopted in September 2000
                                                                              under the new Regulation No 1493/1999 (3), which
                                                                              entered into force on 21 July 1999, it was Regulation No
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               822/87 which was binding on the Member States until
                                                                              August 2000, that is to say during nearly the whole of
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                   the period when the Commission investigated the aid.
Case C-180/00 (2). Article 109(2) of the OCT decision has also
been infringed inasmuch as the safeguard measures adopted
are not appropriate for removing the difficulties which the
Commission considers to be present.                                     —     (In the alternative) Incompatibility of the contested
                                                                              decision with Regulation No 1493/2000
(1) OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.09.2000, p. 64.
(2) OJ 2000 C 211 of 22.07.2000, p. 10.
                                                                              —     The Commission is wrong to find the French
                                                                                aid incompatible on the ground that it does not
                                                                                sufficiently reduce yields of the Ugni-blanc grape
                                                                                variety. Contrary to what the Commission main-
                                                                                tains, Regulation No 1493/1999 does not establish
                                                                                a correlation between the conversion of land and
                                                                                any obligation on the Member States to reduce yield
                                                                                — and thus production — on non-converted land.
Action brought on 18 December 2000 by French Republic
    against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-456/00)                                       —     Error in law: by requiring an ‘assurance that restruc-
                                                                                turing of 1 000 hectares would be accompanied by
                                                                                grubbing-up of an equivalent area’, the Commission
                         (2001/C 45/24)
                                                                                adds a condition to the conversion of vineyards
                                                                                provided for in Article 11 of Regulation
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                           No 1493/1999, whereas there is nothing in that
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Article to say that conversion of a given area must
Communities on 18 December 2000 by the French Republic,                             be accompanied by the grubbing-up of an equivalent
represented by G. de Bergues, head of sub-directorate at the                        area. Limitation of the right to replant on converted
Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and                   surfaces provided for by Commission Regulation
by L. Bernheim, secretary for foreign affairs at the same                           No 1227/2000 (4), and in particular Article 13
ministry, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                          thereof, cannot be treated like the grubbing up of
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II.                           non-converted land.


title: Case T-582/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Carpent Languages v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Organisation of meetings and conferences — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Carpent Languages v Commission
      (Case T-582/08) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Organisation of meetings and conferences - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment)
      (2010/C 288/71)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Carpent Languages (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Simon and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by F. Tulkens and V. Ost, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008 rejecting the applicant’s bid for lot No 4 ‘Provision of teams of interpreters according to the linguistic requirements of each event’ of contract notice VT/2008/036 (Multiple framework contracts for meeting and conference organisation services), and the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2008 appointing the successful tenderer of lot No 4, and an application for a declaration that the Commission be ordered to pay damages in the event that the General Court does not grant the application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Carpent Languages SPRL to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-203/16: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Brancheforeningen for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission (State aid — Complaint — Action for failure to act — Definition of Commission’s position terminating the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/21

         Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Brancheforeningen for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission
   (Case T-203/16) (1)

   ((State aid - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Definition of Commission’s position terminating the failure to act - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 178/28)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Brancheforeningen for Regulerkraft i Danmark (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: N. Gade, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and S. Maaløe, acting as agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to comply with the time-limits relating to the duration of the preliminary examination procedure for State aid and, after the opening of the formal procedure, unlawfully failed to take a decision on the complaint, introduced by the applicant, relating to State aid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Brancheforeningen for Regulerkraft i Danmark and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case T-215/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Beniamino Donnici v European Parliament (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Beniamino Donnici v European Parliament
   (Case T-215/07) (1)

   (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)
   (2008/C 51/80)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (Castrolibero, Italy) (represented by: M. Sanino, G. M. Roberti, I. Perego and P. Salvatore, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and L. Vasaggio, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of Beniamino Donnici's credentials [2007/2121(REG)] declaring invalid his mandate as member of the European Parliament
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Court of First Instance disclaims jurisdiction in Case T-215/07 in favour of the Court of Justice so that the latter may rule on the application for annulment.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 183 of 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-476/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — Media-Saturn v OHIM (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark BEST BUY — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — Media-Saturn v OHIM
   (Case T-476/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark BEST BUY - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 37/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented initially by: K. Lewinsky; subsequently by: C.-R. Haarmann and E. Warnke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 591/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BEST BUY as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2000 in Case C-237/98 P: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Embargo on trade with Iraq — Lawful act — Damage)

text:
23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 273/5
1.    Declares that, by maintaining rules requiring Community              1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      nationals who pursue haulage activities in Italy as service
      providers to be entered on the professional register of the          2.    Orders Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH to pay the
      Chambers of Commerce following authorisation by the Ministry               costs.
      for the Interior, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 15 June 2000
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97 (reference for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State):
                          of 15 June 2000                                  ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v Minister van Volkshuis-
                                                                           vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (C-418/97)
                                                                           and Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees and Others v Directeur
in Case C-237/98 P: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft                   van de dienst Milieu en Water van de provincie Gelder-
mbH v Council of the European Union and Commission                                                 land (C-419/97) (1)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Environment — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Embargo on trade                                           — Concept of ‘waste’)
              with Iraq — Lawful act — Damage)
                                                                                (2000/C 273/09)
                          (2000/C 273/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97: reference to the
In Case C-237/98 P: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft                   Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
mbH, established in Munich, Germany, represented by Pro-                   EC) from the Nederlandse Raad van State, The Netherlands, for
fessor K. M. Meessen, with an address for service in Luxem-                a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
bourg at the chambers of P. Kinsch, 100 Boulevard de la                    court between ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd and Minister van
Pétrusse — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First               Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                   (C-418/97) and between Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees, Stich-
28 April 1998 in Case T-184/95 Dorsch Consult v Council                    ting Werkgroep Weurt+, Vereniging Stedelijk Leefmilieu
and Commission [1998] ECR II-667, seeking to have that                     Nijmegen and Directeur van de dienst Milieu en Water van de
judgment set aside and the same form of order as that sought               provincie Gelderland, joined party: Elektriciteitsproductiemaat-
by the appellant at first instance, the other parties to the               schappij Oost- en Noord-Nederland NV (Epon) (C-419/97) —
proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:                  on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
S. Marquardt and A. Tanca and Commission of the European                   15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
Communities (Agents: A. Rosas and J. Sack) — the Court (Fifth              Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (President of the First                   L 78, p. 32) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Chamber), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                   D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                   Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puisso-
M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; D. Lout-             chet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
erman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it:                             judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-224/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtsachen (Regional Civil Court) — by order of that court of 7 May 2001 in the case of Dr. Gerhard Köbler v Republic of Austria

text:
C 212/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Appeal brought on 28 May 2001 against the decision                            to Community law is a decision of a supreme court of a
handed down on 28 March 2001 by the Court of First                            Member State, such as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsger-
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)                          ichtshof?
in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna González del
Valle and the Commission of the European Communities                    2.    If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                        (Case C-219/01 P)                                     Is the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which
                                                                              it is for the legal system of each Member State to
                                                                              determine which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to
                         (2001/C 212/31)
                                                                              hear disputes involving individual rights derived from
                                                                              Community law (see inter alia Case C-54/96 Dorsch
An appeal against the decision handed down on 28 March                        [1997] ECR I-4961) also applicable when the conduct of
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                  an institution purportedly contrary to Community law is
ties (First Chamber) in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna                    a judgment of a supreme court of a Member State, such
González del Valle and the Commission of the European                        as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof?
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Javier Reyna                     3.    If the answer to Question 2 is yes:
González del Valle, represented by J.M. Valoria de Arana,
abogado.                                                                      Does the legal interpretation given in the above-men-
                                                                              tioned judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, accord-
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                        ing to which the special length of service increment is a
                                                                              form of loyalty bonus, breach a rule of directly applicable
—     set aside the contested order in its entirety and                       Community law, in particular the prohibition on indirect
—     uphold all the claims which he brought before the Court                 discrimination in Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now
      of First Instance.                                                      Article 39 EC) and the relevant settled case-law of the
                                                                              Court of Justice?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         4.    If the answer to Question 3 is yes:
Although Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of                       Is this rule of directly applicable Community law such as
Officials of the European Communities do not make any                         to create a subjective right for the plaintiff in the main
distinction between irregularities which render a measure void                proceedings?
and those which render it merely voidable, that does not mean
that an administrative measure which is void is always subject          5.    If the answer to Question 4 is yes?:
to the time-limits for bringing proceedings prescribed by those
articles.                                                                     Does the Court of Justice of the European Community
                                                                              have sufficient information in the content of the order
                                                                              for reference to enable it to rule itself as to whether the
                                                                              Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the circumstances of the main
                                                                              proceedings described has clearly and significantly
                                                                              exceeded the discretion available to it, or is it for the
                                                                              referring Austrian court to answer that question.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
für Zivilrechtsachen (Regional Civil Court) — by order of
that court of 7 May 2001 in the case of Dr. Gerhard
                  Köbler v Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-224/01)
                         (2001/C 212/32)
                                                                        Action brought on 6 June 2001 by the Commission of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtsachen of 7 May 2001, which was received at the                                         (Case C-226/01)
Court Registry on 6 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dr. Gerhard Köbler v Republic of Austria on the
following questions:                                                                              (2001/C 212/33)
1.    Is the case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect that it
      is immaterial as regards State liability for a breach of          An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
      Community law which institution of a Member State is              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      responsible for that breach (see Joined Cases C-46/93 and         6 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
      C-48/93 Factortame [1996 ECR I-1029) also applicable              ties, represented by Hans Støvlbæk, acting as Agent, with an
      when the conduct of an institution purportedly contrary           address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-77/12: Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/30

         Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)
   (Case T-77/12)
   2012/C 109/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wahl GmbH (Unterkirnach, Germany) (represented by: T. Kieser, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tenacta Group SpA (Azzano S. Paolo, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889;

               —

               in the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889 in relation to registration of the trade mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 7;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wahl GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘bellissima’ for goods in Classes 7 and 8 (application No 8406704).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tenacta Group SpA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘bellissima IMETEC’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11 (Community trade mark No 4534889).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case T-219/02: Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
Grounds of claim:              —      The trademark applied for            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                      satisfies   the      minimum
                                      requirements for a distinc-
                                      tive character (Article 7(1)(b)      In the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the
                                      of Regulation (EC) No 40/            jury’s decision of 31 July 2001 in competition COM/A/6/01
                                      94 (1)).                             in so far as the applicant was thereby refused admission to that
                                                                           competition on the ground that she exceeded the age limit set
                               —      The contested decision is            in the notice of competition.
                                      contrary to jurisprudence of
                                      the Court.
                                                                           In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-            —     that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).                                          in that, in her appeal, the applicant was not seeking a
                                                                                declaration that one of the conditions stipulated in the
                                                                                notice of competition, namely the condition regarding
                                                                                age, was illegal, but a declaration that the jury’s decision
                                                                                refusing her admission to the competition was illegal;
                                                                           —     infringement of the principle of equality, enshrined
                                                                                in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits all
                                                                                discrimination based on age;
Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera                        —     infringement of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental
   against the Commission of the European Communities                            Rights of the European Union and Article 14 of the
                                                                                European Convention on Human Rights.
                         (Case T-219/02)
                         (2002/C 233/53)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits
                                                                           GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                           (Case T-222/02)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera,                                          (2002/C 233/54)
residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón Garcia-Gallardo,
Gil Fournier and D. Javier Guillén Carra, lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the Commission’s decision refusing the applicant’s             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      application to take part in competition COM/A/6/01;                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits GmbH, of Lustenau
—     overturn the dismissal of the administrative appeal against          (Austria), represented by M. Bergermann, Lawyer.
      the refusal of the applicant’s application to take part in
      the said competition;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order such other relief as the Court may think appropriate           —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      so that the Commission fulfils its obligations under                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Article 233 EC and, specifically, conducts a fresh examin-                 Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2002 (Ref: R 1095-2000-
      ation of appeal No 486/01;                                                 1);
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-688/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2011 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 — Rejection of the action at first instance, after its referral back by the General Court, as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded — Prospect of promotion)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-688/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2011 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 - Rejection of the action at first instance, after its referral back by the General Court, as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded - Prospect of promotion))
   (2017/C 095/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Auditors (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and B. Schäfer, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015, Schönberger v Court of Auditors (F-14/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:112), and seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Declares that Mr P. Schönberger is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Court of Auditors in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case C-339/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/126/EC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Period of prohibition — Issue of the driving licence by a Member State before the entry into force of a period of prohibition in the Member State of normal residence — Grounds for refusing to recognise in the Member State of normal residence the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/19

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann
   (Case C-339/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Period of prohibition - Issue of the driving licence by a Member State before the entry into force of a period of prohibition in the Member State of normal residence - Grounds for refusing to recognise in the Member State of normal residence the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State))
   (2015/C 236/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

      Party in the criminal proceedings

   Andreas Wittmann

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a measure by which the Member State of normal residence of the driver of a motor vehicle, which is unable to withdraw his driving licence because he has already been subject to an earlier withdrawal decision, orders that a new driving licence may not be issued to him for a given period of time must be regarded as a measure restricting, suspending or withdrawing the driving licence for the purposes of that provision, with the consequence that it precludes the recognition of any licence issued by another Member State before the expiry of that period. The fact that the judgment concerning that measure became final after the issue of the driving licence in the second Member State is irrelevant in that regard, provided that the licence was obtained after the delivery of that judgment and the grounds justifying that measure existed on the date that licence was issued.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 25 April 2002 in Case C-396/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste-water treatment — Urban waste-water of the city of Milan — Discharge in a sensitive area — Relevant catchment area)

text:
15.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/9
adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and             declaration that, by not ensuring that by 31 December 1998
administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions              at the latest the discharges of urban waste water of the city of
of Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting                  Milan, located within a catchment area draining into areas of
up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres             the delta of the River Po and the north-west coast of the
in length and over (OJ 1998 L 34, p. 1), the Kingdom of the                Adriatic Sea defined by Decree-Law No 152 of the Italian
Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC              Republic of 11 May 1999, enacting provisions on the preven-
Treaty, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr               tion of water pollution and implementing Directive 91/271/
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and                EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment and Directive
A. La Pergola, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,               91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 May 2002, in which it:                of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
                                                                           sources (GURI of 29 May 1999, ord. suppl) as sensitive, within
                                                                           the meaning of Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ
      the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to       1991 L 135, p. 40), were subjected to more stringent
      comply with Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December                treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment
      1997 setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels       prescribed by Article 4 of that directive, the Italian Republic
      of 24 metres in length and over, the Kingdom of the                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of the
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that          aforementioned directive, as specified in Article 5(5), the
      directive.                                                           Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),
                                                                           President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,
                                                                           R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April
                                                                           2002, in which it:
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                           1.   Declares that, by not ensuring that, by 31 December 1998 at
                                                                                the latest, the discharges of urban waste water of the city of
                                                                                Milan, within a relevant catchment area draining into the areas
                                                                                of the delta of the River Po and the north-west coast of the
                                                                                Adriatic Sea defined by Decree-Law No 152 of the Italian
                                                                                Republic of 11 May 1999, enacting provisions on the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          prevention of water pollution and implementing Directive
                                                                                91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment and
                                                                                Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                       protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                                                                agricultural sources as sensitive, within the meaning of Article 5
                           25 April 2002                                        of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning
                                                                                urban waste-water treatment, were subjected to more stringent
                                                                                treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment
in Case C-396/00: Commission of the European Communi-                           prescribed by Article 4 of that directive, the Italian Republic
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of that
                                                                                same directive;
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste-water treatment —
Urban waste-water of the city of Milan — Discharge in a
           sensitive area — Relevant catchment area)                       2.   Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                          (2002/C 144/13)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-396/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli); Application for a


title: Case T-278/06: Action brought on 6 October 2006 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/60

         Action brought on 6 October 2006 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-278/06)
   (2006/C 294/121)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. O'Neill, acting as agent, and H. Mercer, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC on the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in respect of expenditure of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund be annulled in so far as it excludes from Community financing United Kingdom expenditure for the years 2001-2004 in the sum of £1,351,441.25 in the audit field ‘Butterfats in food processing’ on the grounds of ‘Insufficient quantity controls on manufactured quantities’;

               —

               the Commission be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the United Kingdom.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission's Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) and in particular the part concerning the use of butterfats in food processing in the United Kingdom.
   The dispute concerns the control measures taken by the applicant under Article 23 of Commission Regulation No 2571/97 (2) (‘the Commission regulation’) which prescribes measures to be taken by Member States inter alia in respect of the manufacture and use of concentrated butter for which subsidy is available when the concentrated butter is used for the manufacture of specified pastries and cakes.
   Article 23(2) of the Commission regulation provides for an ‘on-the-spot’ check on manufacturers of concentrated butter ‘during the manufacture of concentrated butter’ so that ‘each tender award is checked […] at least once’.
   The Commission finds that the applicant has failed to carry out key controls in that, as a matter of interpretation of the Commission regulation, the applicant is under an obligation to verify physically the quantities in one batch of concentrated butter per tender after manufacturing has taken place. The applicant alleges that this in effect amounts to ensure that each tender award is checked at least twice. The applicant claims that the Commission relies on a concept which is not in the Commission regulation of a ‘physical’ check on quantity.
   The applicant invokes two pleas in law:

               a)

               The Commission committed an error of law in that the contested decision was unlawful under the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation No 1258/1999 (3) (the ‘Council regulation’) on the financing of the common agricultural policy as there was no basis for concluding that the relevant expenditure was not effected in compliance with the Community rules contained in Article 23(2) of the Commission regulation; and

               b)

               the Commission committed an error of law in that the determination of the amount excluded was in breach of the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of the Council regulation.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (OJ 1997 L 350, p. 3).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).


title: Case T-164/08: Action brought on 30 April 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/22

         Action brought on 30 April 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-164/08)
   (2008/C 158/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Personnel Selection Office
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of notice of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD7 and AD 9) for the constitution of a reserve from which to recruit 4 and 9 doctors in the ‘Commission channel’ and ‘other institutions channel’ respectively, published in the English, French and German editions of the
                     Official Journal of the European Union C 48 A of 21 February 2008.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-117/08 Italy v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.


title: Case T-231/12: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Rocket Dog Brands LLC v OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark JULIUS K9 — Earlier Community figurative marks K9 — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Rocket Dog Brands LLC v OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)
   (Case T-231/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark JULIUS K9 - Earlier Community figurative marks K9 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 189/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Hayward, United-States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 1124/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rocket Dog Brands LLC and Julius-K9 bt.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Rocket Dog Brands LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-345/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Germany) — Krzysztof Peśla v Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39 EC — Refusal of access to serve as a legal trainee — Candidate who obtained his law diploma in another Member State — Criteria for assessment of the equivalence of knowledge acquired)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Germany) — Krzysztof Peśla v Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
   (Case C-345/08) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Article 39 EC - Refusal of access to serve as a legal trainee - Candidate who obtained his law diploma in another Member State - Criteria for assessment of the equivalence of knowledge acquired)
   2010/C 24/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Krzysztof Peśla

      Defendant: Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — Decision refusing access to the period of preparatory legal training for the regulated legal professions addressed to a candidate who obtained his legal diploma in another Member State — Criteria for assessment of the equivalence of education and training.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 39 EC must be interpreted as meaning that the knowledge to be taken as a reference point for the purposes of assessing the equivalence of training following an application for direct admission to a legal traineeship for the legal professions, without taking the exams he would otherwise have to sit, is that attested by the qualification required in the Member State in which the candidate seeks to be admitted to serve such a legal traineeship.

               2.

               Article 39 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authorities of a Member State consider an application of a national of another Member State to be admitted to serve a practical training period, such as a legal traineeship for the legal professions in Germany, with a view to exercising a regulated legal profession at a later date, that article does not of itself oblige those authorities to require from the candidate, in the examination of equivalence required by Community law, merely a level of legal knowledge which is lower than that attested by the qualification required in that Member State for access to such a period of practical training. However, Article 39 EC does not preclude a degree of flexibility as regards the qualification required. Moreover it is important that, in practice, the possibility of partial recognition of the knowledge attested by qualifications which the person concerned has obtained should be more than merely notional. That is a matter for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case C-329/07: Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/29

         Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-329/07)
   (2007/C 211/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1), or in any event by not communicating them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2004/48/EC into domestic law expired on 29 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16.


title: Case C-247/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by Maxcom Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/8

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by Maxcom Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-247/15 P)
   (2015/C 262/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT; Council of the European Union; European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Set aside the General Court’s findings with regard to the second part of the first plea in law;

               —

               Dismiss the first plea in law of the Applicant before the General Court in its entirety; and

               —

               Order the Applicant before the General Court to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the Intervention before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:

               —

               The General Court manifestly erred by holding that under Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) the Council could not conclude that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in transhipment from the facts that (i) the Applicant before the General Court was not a genuine Indonesian producer and (ii) did not undertake assembly operations that went beyond the thresholds set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation.

               —

               In the alternative: The annulment of Regulation 501/2013 (2) as far as it concerns the Applicant before the General Court is not justified even if the Council’s findings on transhipment were incorrect as the Court confirmed that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in assembly operations that did not go beyond the thresholds set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation and also confirmed the existence of all other criteria required for not granting the Applicant before the General Court an exemption from the circumvention measures.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

      OJ L 343, p. 51.

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

      OJ L 153, p. 1.


title: Case T-412/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Bena Properties v Council

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/19

      Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Bena Properties v Council
      (Case T-412/16)
      (2016/C 364/16)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (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 C-327/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg by order of 20 August 1999 in the case of FILA Sport S.p.A. v New Times International Transport Service Co. Ltd

text:
20.11.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 333/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                  — by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules
Korneuburg by order of 20 August 1999 in the case of                          for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them for
FILA Sport S.p.A. v New Times International Transport                         the fishing years 1988 and 1990,
                        Service Co. Ltd
                                                                         — by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
                       (Case C-327/99)
                                                                              rules on the conservation of species through sufficient
                                                                              monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate inspection
                       (1999/C 333/36)                                        of the fishing fleet and of catches landed and recordal
                                                                              of catches for both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 20 August 1999 from
                                                                         — by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels
the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)
                                                                              flying the French flag or registered in France when the
(Republic of Austria), which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                              catches taken had been deemed to have exhausted the
on 31 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                              corresponding quota and by prohibiting fishing on a
FILA Sport S.p.A. v New Times International Transport Service
                                                                              contingent basis even though the quota had been
Co. Ltd on the following question:
                                                                              exceeded by far, in both the 1988 and 1990 fishing
                                                                              years,
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,              — by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of                      ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European               for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards the
Communities No L 341 of 30.12.1994) also applicable to                        1988 and 1990 fishing years,
situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
the course of transit between two States not belonging to
the European Community, temporarily detained by customs               2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
authorities in a Member State on the basis of that regulation,
at the request of a holder of rights who claims that his rights
have been infringed and whose undertaking has its registered
office in a Member State of the European Community?
                                                                      Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                      — Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83 in
                                                                         conjunction with Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2241/87
                                                                         (lack of control measures): the French authorities explain
                                                                         that with effect from 1988 they established new procedures
                                                                         for statistical processing. They themselves recognise that
Action brought on 9 September 1999 by the Commission                     those procedures have not yielded all the expected results.
of the European Communities against the French Republic                  The order issued — belatedly — by the French Minister for
                                                                         Fisheries on 24 August 1998 cannot in any event be
                       (Case C-333/99)                                   regarded as an adequate measure.
                       (1999/C 333/37)                                — Infringement of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87
                                                                         (belated order to cease fishing): every Member State, must,
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             under Article 11(2), on the basis of the information
Court of Justice on 9 September 1999 by the Commission of                available as to catches taken, determine the date on which
the European Communities, represented by Thomas Van Rijn,                it is envisaged that the quota will be exhausted and in due
Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting          time adopt the appropriate measures to enable fishing to
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              be prohibited as from that date. However, during the 1998
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,           fishing year the prohibition measure was adopted on each
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                occasion after the quota had been exhausted. As regards
                                                                         the 1990 fishing year, in none of the six cases of
                                                                         overfishing established had any measure been adopted
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   to stop fishing. The explanations given by the French
the Court of Justice should:                                             Government (inadequacy of statistical facilities, difficulty
                                                                         of managing small quotas exploited by a diffuse fleet) are
1. Declare that the French Republic has failed to fulfil                 unacceptable.
    its obligations under (i) Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)
    No 170/83(1) of 25 January 1983 in conjunction with
    Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87, (ii) Art-            — Infringement of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2241/87
    icle 11(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 (2) and (iii) Art-         (no criminal or administrative penalties imposed): the
    icle 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) 170/83 of 25 January 1983              appropriate monitoring or inspections would have inter
    in conjunction with Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC)                 alia enabled the French authorities to adopt prohibiting
    No 2241/87:                                                          measures at the time prescribed by the Community


title: Case C-22/04: Action brought on 26 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 85/14               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            3.4.2004
9.   Is there a conflict between Community competition law                     withdraw the invitation to tender (withdrawal decision
     and/or the fundamental principles of Community law                        analogous to the award decision) amenable to review in
     (with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13              any case, since the applicant is entitled to have that
     of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a                         decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met,
     national provision which requires a consumer or a third                   notwithstanding the possibility, once withdrawal has
     party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement                 taken place, of obtaining an award of damages?
     which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
     abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
     EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an                       (1) OJ L 395, p. 33.
     application to a court other than the one which has
     jurisdiction ratione loci on the basis of the registered
     office (sede) of the subsidiary of the insurance company
     with which they entered into a contract or in the court
     district in which the injured party is resident, having
     regard also to the difference in legal costs which each
     approach involves?
10. Does Community law require national courts to disapply
     national rules in conflict with Community law or rather             Action brought on 26 January 2004 by the Commission of
     to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?               the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-22/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/22)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt (Austria) by order of that Court of 12 January 2004                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
in the case of Koppensteiner GmbH against Bundesimmo-                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Janu-
                   biliengesellschaft m.b.H.                             ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Thomas van Rijn and Maria Kondou-Durande,
                                                                         Legal Advisers in its Legal Service.
                         (Case C-15/04)
                        (2004/C 85/21)                                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to ensure that fishing vessels which
                                                                               fly its flag and must be equipped with devices for position
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         monitoring by means of satellite were in fact equipped,
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                          according to the type of vessel, on 30 June 1998 or
(Austria) (Federal Procurement Office) of 12 January 2004,                     1 January 2000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
received at the Court Registry on 20 January 2004, for a                       its obligations under Article 3 of Council Regulation
preliminary ruling in the case of Koppensteiner GmbH against                   (EEC) No 2847/93 (1) of 12 October 1993;
Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft m.b.H. on the following ques-
tions:                                                                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1.   Are the provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with
     Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
     21 December 1989 (1) so unconditional and sufficiently
     precise that, in the event of withdrawal of the invitation          Pleas in law and arguments
     to tender after the opening of tenders, an individual is
     entitled rely on those provisions directly before the
     national courts and to seek a review of the withdrawal?             The period for transposition of the regulation into national
                                                                         law expired on 1 January 2000.
2.   If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, are
     Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(1)(b) of Council
     Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 to be                      (1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
     interpreted as meaning that Member States are obliged
     to make a contracting authority’s decision, prior to
     withdrawal of the invitation to tender, that it will