title: Case C-266/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions — Public interest — Public security — International relations — Documents which have served as the basis for a Council decision establishing restrictive measures directed against certain persons with a view to combating terrorism — Sensitive documents — Refusal of access — Refusal to disclose the identity of the States from which some of those documents emanate)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-266/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exceptions - Public interest - Public security - International relations - Documents which have served as the basis for a Council decision establishing restrictive measures directed against certain persons with a view to combating terrorism - Sensitive documents - Refusal of access - Refusal to disclose the identity of the States from which some of those documents emanate)
   (2007/C 82/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Jose Maria Sison (represented by: J. Fermon, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Finnegan, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03 Sison v Council, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for annulment of the Council's decision refusing the applicant's request for access to certain documents on which the Council relied when adopting Decision 2002/848/EC implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ 2002 L 295, p. 12)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Sison to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case C-563/07: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 18 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/22

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 18 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-563/07) (1)

   (2008/C 313/37)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2003 in Case T-306/00: Conserve Italia Soc. coop. rl v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — EAGGF — Reduction of financial aid — Statement of reasons — Error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

text:
3.4.2004                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 85/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 January 2004
                         of 11 December 2003
                                                                              in Case T-67/01: JCB Service v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-306/00: Conserve Italia Soc. coop. rl v Com-
            mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                               (Competition — Article 81 EC — Distribution agreements)
(Agriculture — EAGGF — Reduction of financial aid —
Statement of reasons — Error of assessment — Principle of                                                (2004/C 85/44)
                            proportionality)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                             (2004/C 85/43)
                                                                              In Case T-67/01, JCB Service, established in Rocester, Stafford-
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                         shire (United Kingdom), represented by R. Fowler QC, R. And-
                                                                              erson, barrister, L. Carstensen, solicitor, and initially by
                                                                              M. Israel, and, subsequently, by S. Smith, solicitors, with an
                                                                              address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
                                                                              European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and S. Rating):
                                                                              Application as a principal claim, for annulment of Commission
In case T-306/00: Conserve Italia Soc. coop. rl, established in               Decision 2002/190/EC of 21 December 2000 relating to a
San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy), represented by M. Averani,                     proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP.F.1/
A. Pisaneschi and S. Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for                  35.918 — JCB) (OJ 2002 L 69, p. 1), and, in the alternative,
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                     for partial annulment of that decision and corresponding
Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and M. Moretto) — appli-                     reduction of the fine imposed on JCB Service, the Court of
cation for annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 1752                      First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
of 11 July 2000 reducing aid from the Guidance Section of the                 President, J. Azizi and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
EAGGF for Project No 88.41.IT.002.0 entitled ‘Technical                       trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January
modernisation of an establishment processing products in the                  2004, in which it:
fruit and vegetable sector at Alseno (Piacenza)’ — the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-
                                                                              1.    Annuls Article 1(c), (d) and (e) and Article 3(d) and (e) of
Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges,
                                                                                Commission Decision 2002/190/EC of 21 December 2000
J. Plingers, Administrator, acting for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty
judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it:
                                                                                (Case COMP.F.1/35.918 — JCB);
                                                                              2.    Reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
1.     Annuls Commission Decision C(2000) 1752 of 11 July 2000                      Article 4 of Decision 2002/190 to EUR 30 million;
       reducing aid from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF for
       Project No 88.41.IT.002.0, entitled ‘Technical modernisation
       of an establishment processing products in the fruit and               3.    Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claims
       vegetable sector at Alseno (Piacenza)’;                                      seeking the production of certain documents on the court file
                                                                                declared non accessible during the administrative procedure;
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay four            4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
       fifths of those incurred by the applicant;
                                                                              5.    Orders the applicant to bear three quarters of its own costs;
3.     Orders the applicant to bear one fifth of its own costs.
                                                                              6.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and a quarter of
                                                                                the costs incurred by the applicant.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 186 of 30.06.2001.


title: Case F-31/16: Action brought on 22 June 2016 — ZZ v CEDEFOP

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/47

         Action brought on 22 June 2016 — ZZ v CEDEFOP
   (Case F-31/16)
   (2016/C 296/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted under the 2015 annual promotion procedure at the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) and an application for damages in respect of the non-material and material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision of non-promotion dated 4 November 2015 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the CEDEFOP agency to pay compensation in respect of the harm suffered;

               —

               order CEDEFOP to pay the costs.


title: Case F-44/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2008 — Guido Strack v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Rejection of candidature — Action for annulment and for damages — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Retirement — Preselection comittee — Composition — Temporal application of new provisions — Independence — Impartiality — Notification of a decision)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/54

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2008 — Guido Strack v Commission
   (Case F-44/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Rejection of candidature - Action for annulment and for damages - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Retirement - Preselection comittee - Composition - Temporal application of new provisions - Independence - Impartiality - Notification of a decision)
   (2008/C 285/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J. Mosar initially, then by M. Wehrheim, then by F. Gengler, lastly by P. Goergen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision to reject the applicant's candidature for the post of head of the ‘Calls for tender and contracts’ unit and to appoint another candidate to that post and, secondly, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application for annulment of the decision to appoint Mr A to the post of head of the ‘Calls for tender and contracts’ unit of the Publications Office of the European Communities as inadmissible;

               2.

               Annuls the decision to reject the candidature of Mr Strack for the post of head of the ‘Calls for tender and contracts’ unit of the Publications Office of the European Communities;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 by way of damages;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders Mr Strack to bear half of his own costs;

               6.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Mr Strack.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005. p. 28 (Case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-225/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-39/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/18

         Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-39/07)
   (2007/C 82/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

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

      Defendan: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration by not adopting all the necessary measures to transpose that directive in connection with the profession of hospital pharmacist;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Spanish diploma of ‘hospital pharmacist ’is a ‘diploma ’within the meaning of Directive 89/48/EEC, since:

                           —

                           it is a diploma awarded by the competent authority designated by Spanish law;

                           —

                           the diploma shows post-secondary training of more than three years, since in order to obtain the diploma of Hospital Pharmacist it is necessary to be in possession of the university diploma of Licenciado en Farmacia, to have completed the training in the corresponding specialisation and to have passed an examination;

                           —

                           the diploma shows that the holder has the necessary qualifications to follow the profession of hospital pharmacist in Spain.

               2.

               In the same way, the profession of hospital pharmacist is a ‘regulated profession ’in Spain within the meaning of Directive 89/48/EEC.

               3.

               Council Directive 85/433/EEC (2) of 16 September 1985 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to facilitate the right of establishment relating to certain activities in the field of pharmacy, is not applicable to the profession of hospital pharmacist.

               4.

               Consequently, the Kingdom of Spain was required to transpose Directive 89/48/EEC in connection with the profession of hospital pharmacist. By not adopting the necessary measures in that regard, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

      (1)  OJ L 19, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ L 253, p. 37.


title: Case C-236/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 3 June 2008 — Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 3 June 2008 — Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier
   (Case C-236/08)
   (2008/C 209/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Google France, Google Inc.

      Respondent: Louis Vuitton Malletier
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (2) be interpreted as meaning that a provider of a paid referencing service who makes available to advertisers keywords reproducing or imitating registered trade marks and arranges by the referencing agreement to create and favourably display, on the basis of those keywords, advertising links to sites offering infringing goods is using those trade marks in a manner which their proprietor is entitled to prevent?

               2.

               In the event that the trade marks have a reputation, may the proprietor oppose such use under Article 5(2) of the directive and Article 9(1)(c) of the regulation?

               3.

               In the event that such use does not constitute a use which may be prevented by the trade mark proprietor under the directive or the regulation, may the provider of the paid referencing service be regarded as providing an information society service consisting of the storage of information provided by the recipient of the service, within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31 of 8 June 2000 (3), so that that provider cannot incur liability until it has been notified by the trade mark proprietor of the unlawful use of the sign by the advertiser?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

      (3)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).


title: Case C-35/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Assica — Associazione Industriali delle Carni e dei Salumi, Kraft Foods Italia SpA v Associazione fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others (Agriculture — Agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Article 2 — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin — Material scope — Protection on national territory — Absence of Community registration — Consequences — Protection of designations relating to products for which there is no specific link between their characteristics and their geographical origin — Conditions)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/8

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Assica — Associazione Industriali delle Carni e dei Salumi, Kraft Foods Italia SpA v Associazione fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others
   (Case C-35/13) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Article 2 - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin - Material scope - Protection on national territory - Absence of Community registration - Consequences - Protection of designations relating to products for which there is no specific link between their characteristics and their geographical origin - Conditions))
   2014/C 202/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Assica — Associazione Industriali delle Carni e dei Salumi, Kraft Foods Italia SpA

      Defendants: Associazione fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’, La Felinese Salumi SpA, Salumificio Monpiù Srl, Salumi Boschi Fratelli SpA, Gualerzi SpA, Alinovi Tullio di Alinovi Giorgio & C. Snc, Salumificio Gastaldi di Gastaldi Franco & C. Snc, Boschi Cav. Umberto SpA, Fereoli Mario & Figlio Snc, Salumificio Ducale Snc di Morini & Tortini, Fereoli Gino & Figlio Snc, Ronchei Srl, Salumificio B.R.B. Snc

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — Designation of origin which has not been registered and in respect of which there is no legally binding measure establishing the boundaries of the geographical area of production, the rules and regulations governing production, and any requirements which producers may have to satisfy in order to be entitled to use that designation — Possibility of prohibiting, as an act of unfair competition, the use within the national territory of that designation in respect of national products which do not originate in the places covered by the designation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of 17 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not afford protection to a geographical designation which has not obtained a Community registration, but that that geographical designation may be protected, should the case arise, under national legislation concerning geographical designations relating to products for which there is no specific link between their characteristics and their geographical origin, provided, however, that, first, the implementation of that legislation does not undermine the objectives pursued by Regulation No 2081/92 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 and, secondly, it does not contravene the principle of the free movement of goods under Article 28 EC, matters which fall to be determined by the national court.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-228/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (TRECOLORE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (TRECOLORE)
   (Case T-228/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 594/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-35/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 — Honig-Verband v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 — Protected geographical indication — Miel de Provence — Measure of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 — Honig-Verband v Commission
   (Case T-35/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 - Protected geographical indication - ‘Miel de Provence’ - Measure of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 283/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Honig-Verband eV (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and B. Doherty, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14 November 2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI) (OJ 2005 L 297, p. 3)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-513/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank Eerste Aanleg te Gent by decision of that court of 15 December 2004 in the case of Kerckhaert-Morres v Belgische Staat

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank Eerste Aanleg te Gent by decision of that court of 15 December 2004 in the case of Kerckhaert-Morres v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-513/04)
   (2005/C 57/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Rechtbank Eerste Aanleg te Gent (Court of first instance, Ghent) – Sixth Chamber (Netherlands) of 1 December 2004 received at the Court Registry on 15 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Kerckhaert-Morres and Belgische Staat, on the following question:
   Is Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty (at the material time: Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty) to be interpreted as precluding a restriction resulting from a provision in the income tax legislation of a Member State (in this case, Belgium) by which both dividends from shares in a company established in that State and dividends from shares in companies not established in that State are subject, in the hands of the share owner, to a uniform rate but where, in regard to share dividends from companies that are not established in that Member State, no deduction of taxation at source levied in that other Member State is allowed?


title: Case C-282/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Préfet de la région Centre, (Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Precondition for entitlement imposed by national rules — Absence of the worker — Length of the leave entitlement based on the nature of the absence — National rules incompatible with Directive 2003/88 — Role of the national court)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Préfet de la région Centre,
   (Case C-282/10) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - Precondition for entitlement imposed by national rules - Absence of the worker - Length of the leave entitlement based on the nature of the absence - National rules incompatible with Directive 2003/88 - Role of the national court)
   2012/C 73/03
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Maribel Dominguez

      Respondents: Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Préfet de la région Centre,

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Paid annual leave for workers — Entitlement to leave irrespective of the nature of the worker’s absence and its duration — National rules making the granting of such leave conditional on a minimum of ten days’ actual work during the reference year — Obligation on the national court to refrain from applying national provisions that conflict with European Union law

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum period of ten days’ or one month’s actual work during the reference period.

               2.

               It is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration, in particular Article L. 223-4 of the Code du travail, and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 is fully effective and achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the absence of the worker due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by that article of the Code du travail.
               If such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of the legal nature of the respondents in the main proceedings, the direct effect of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 may be relied upon against them.
               If the national court is unable to achieve the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law can none the less rely on the judgment of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the loss sustained.

               3.

               Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, depending on the reason for the worker’s absence on sick leave, provides for a period of paid annual leave equal to or exceeding the minimum period of four weeks laid down in that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-206/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2016 — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2016 — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-206/16)
   (2016/C 251/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, UniCredit SpA, Lauro Sessantuno SpA

      Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Question referred

   Is the proper application of the second paragraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and the proper application of the general principles of European law relating to legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions authorise Consob to increase the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where the condition that ‘there has been collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers’ is fulfilled, without identifying the specific actions which constitute such a situation, and thus without determining clearly the conditions and criteria under which Consob is authorised to adjust upwards the price of the takeover bid?

      (1)  Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 april 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12).


title: Case C-326/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 July 2015 — ‘DNB Banka’AS v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 July 2015 — ‘DNB Banka’AS v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-326/15)
   (2015/C 311/32)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘DNB Banka’AS

      Other party to the proceedings: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it possible for there to be an independent group of persons for the purposes of Article 132(1)(f) of the Directive (1), when the members of that group are established in separate Member States of the European Union, in which that provision of the Directive has been transposed with different requirements which are not compatible?

               2.

               Can a Member State restrict the right of a taxable person to apply the exemption provided for in Article 132(1)(f) of the Directive, when that taxable person has satisfied all the requirements for the application of the exemption in its Member State, but that provision of the Directive has been transposed into the national law of the Member States of other members of the group with restrictions which limit the possibility for taxable persons of other Member States of applying in their own Member State the corresponding exemption from value added tax?

               3.

               Is it permissible to apply the exemption in Article 132(1)(f) of the Directive to services in the Member State of the recipient of those services, who is a taxable person for value added tax, when the provider of the services, also a taxable person for value added tax, has applied in another Member State value added tax to those services in accordance with general arrangements, that is, considering that value added tax on those services was payable in the Member State of the recipient of those services, in accordance with Article 196 of the Directive?

               4.

               Must the term ‘independent group of persons’, for the purposes of Article 132(1)(f) of the Directive, be taken to mean a separate legal person whose existence has to be proved through a specific agreement creating that independent group of persons?
               If the reply to that question is that an independent group of persons need not necessarily be taken to mean a separate entity, is an independent group of persons to be regarded as a group of related undertakings in which, in the course of their usual economic activities, those undertakings provide each other with support services for carrying out their commercial activities, and may the existence of that group be proved through the contracts for services concluded or through documentation on transfer prices?

               5.

               Can a Member State restrict the right of a taxable person to apply the value added tax exemption in Article 132(1)(f) of the Directive, when that taxable person has applied an uplift to the transactions, as required under the legislation on direct taxation of the Member State where the taxable person is established?

               6.

               Does the exemption in Article 132(1)(f) of the Directive apply to services received from third countries? In other words, where a member of an independent group of persons, as referred to in Article 132(1)(f) of the Directive, provides, within that group, services to other members of the group, can that person be a taxable person from a third country?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-138/99: Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 188/16               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Does European law require a period of child-rearing under                  Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
German law prior to 1 January 1986 to be taken into account                the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
if the child was in fact raised in another Member State (in this
case France) but the parent who brought the child up was
                                                                                (Case C-137/99)
engaged in occupational activity as a cross-border worker
subject to compulsory insurance in the Federal Republic of
Germany until the start of the maternal protection period and                                        (1999/C 188/37)
after the end of her maternity leave as well?
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
                                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its legal Service,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
Conseil d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth                 1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
and Eighth Sub-Sections) by order of that court of 5 March                      administrative provisions required to comply with Council
1999 in the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de                          Directive 96/43/EC (1) of 26 June 1996 amending and
l’Economie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di                        consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure
                               Siena                                            financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
                                                                                animals and certain animal products and amending Direc-
                                                                                tives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, for the protection of
                         (Case C-136/99)                                        animals during transportation, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                                directive;
                         (1999/C 188/36)
                                                                           2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the French Conseil                     Pleas in law and main arguments
d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth and Eighth
Sub-Sections) of 5 March 1999, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in               The Member States are required by the binding character of
the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de l’Economie et               the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC
des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena.                          Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives
                                                                           into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for
                                                                           that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately
The French Conseil d’Etat is asking the Court of Justice to rule           to the Commission. That period expired on 1 July 1997
on the question whether or not the provisions of the Eighth                without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 (1)have                   Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
the effect of granting to taxable persons established in a                 into national law.
Member State of the Community where they are taxed only on
a part of their turnover a right to a partial refund of the tax            (1) OJ No L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
charged in another Member State in respect of goods or
services which they have used in order to carry out, in the
State in which they are established, transactions of which some
are not taxed. If they do, to what method of determining the
portion of refundable tax do those provisions refer, and, in
particular, is that portion to be determined according to the
rules applicable in the State where the taxable person is
established, or according to the rules in force in the State
required to make the refund?                                               Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
(1) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on
    the harmonisation of the 1aws of the Member States relating to                                   (Case C-138/99)
    turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax
    to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country
    (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).                                                                          (1999/C 188/38)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/17
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser,               (2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 The Commission considers that Ireland’s legislation, by
the Court should:                                                      imposing excise duty on carriers in respect of every passenger
                                                                       ticket on services from Ireland to other Member States (with
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and        the exception of flights to Northern Ireland) and not upon
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply               flights within Ireland (and to Northern Ireland), is incompatable
    with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994                with the principle of freedom to provide services as stated in
    establishing the fundamental principles governing the              Articles 59 and 62 of the Treaty and in the rules laid down in
    investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (1),       Article 3(1) of Regulation 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
    the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its             for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.
    obligations under that directive;
                                                                       With regard to Ireland’s contention that there is no infringe-
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.              ment of Regulation 2408/92 because the excise duty is
                                                                       non-discriminatory on grounds of nationality, the Commission
                                                                       is of the view that the principles governing the freedom to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        provide services go beyond the mere prohibition of any
                                                                       discrimination on grounds of nationality. Even if national
                                                                       measures restricting that freedom apply without distinction to
Article 12 of the abovementioned directive provides that the           national providers of services and to those of other Member
Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations            States, they are still unacceptable if they are not warranted by
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the             mandatory requirements in the public interest, or if the
directive not later than 21 November 1996, and that they are           same result can be obtained by less restrictive rules (the
to inform the Commission thereof.                                      proportionality principle).
Although the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg indicated, in its               (1) OJ L 240, 24.08.1992, p. 8.
response to the formal notice and to the reasoned opinion,
that the necessary measures were in the course of preparation,
the Commission has not to date received any information
regarding the adoption of those measures.
(1) OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 14.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
                                                                       Beroep te Gent by judgment of that court of 13 April
                                                                       1999 in the case of NV Algemene Maatschappij van
                                                                       Verzekeringen en Grondkrediet, now known as NV
                                                                       Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en Dienstverl-
                                                                                ening (AMID), against the Belgian State
Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of                                            (Case C-141/99)
         the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (1999/C 188/40)
                        (Case C-139/99)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (1999/C 188/39)                                European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep te
                                                                       Gent (Ghent Court of Appeal) of 13 April 1999, received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 21 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of              in the case of NV Algemene Maatschappij van Verzekeringen
Justice of the European Communities on 19 April 1999 by the            en Grondkrediet, now known as NV Algemene Maatschappij
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 voor Investering en Dienstverlening (AMID), against the
Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address          Belgian State, on the following question:
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre            Does Article 52 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
Wagner.                                                                the European Community preclude the application of national
                                                                       legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            assessment to corporation tax, a business loss incurred in that
                                                                       Member State during an earlier taxable period by a company
(1) declare that by providing in Section 65 of the Finance Act         established in that State can be offset against the profits made
    1982 (as amended) that flights from Ireland to other               by that company during a later taxable period only to the
    Member States (with the exception of Northern Ireland)             extent to which that loss cannot be attributed to the profit
    are subject to a higher tax rate than flights within Ireland,      made by a permanent establishment of that company in
    Ireland has failed to comply with Article 3(1) of Council          another Member State during that earlier taxable period, with
    Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1);                                   the result that the loss thus attributed cannot be offset, in


title: Case C-575/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2013 — Thomas Etzold and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2013 — Thomas Etzold and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-575/13)
   2014/C 15/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Thomas Etzold, Sandra Etzold, Toni Lennard Etzold

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

               2.

               If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

               3.

               Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).


title: Case C-357/03: Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
1.11.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 264/19
1.    Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 11(2)(a)                    EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and
      of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) and Article 6(1)(g) of Directive                safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents
      86/378/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 96/97/EC (3),                      at work (14th individual Directive within the meaning of
      preclude provisions of statutes governing a supplemen-                     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
      tary occupational pension scheme of the kind at issue in                   of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      this case under which an employee, during statutory                        Article 14 of that directive;
      maternity leave (in this case from 16 December 1992 to
      5 April 1993 and from 17 January to 22 April 1994),                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      acquires no deferred rights to an insurance annuity which,                 proceedings.
      in the event of her early departure from the compulsory
      insurance scheme, may be claimed monthly from the time
      the insurance contingency (pensionable age, occupational
      disability or invalidity) materialises, because the accrual of
      such rights is conditional upon the employee’s receiving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      taxable pay during the relevant period, but the benefits
      paid to her during maternity leave do not constitute
      taxable pay under the provisions of national law?                    The period for transposition expired on 5 May 2001.
2.    Is this the case in particular if account is taken of the fact
                                                                           (1) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.
      that the insurance annuity is not — like the occupational
      pension which would be paid if the insurance contingency
      materialised whilst she was still in the compulsory
      pension scheme — intended to cover the employee in
      old age or in the event of invalidity but to reimburse the
      contributions made in respect of her during the period of
      compulsory insurance?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 348 [1992], p. 1.                                                 of the European Communities against the Republic of
(2) OJ L 225 [1986], p. 40.                                                                              Austria
(3) OJ L 46 [1997], p. 20.
                                                                                (Case C-358/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/31)
Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                               Austria                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                           on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
                          (Case C-357/03)                                  Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
                                                                           Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
                         (2003/C 264/30)                                   the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the                          notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter                         necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/269/
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within                       EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an                    requirements for the manual handling of loads where
address for service in Luxembourg.                                               there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers
                                                                                (fourth individual Directive within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9
                                                                                of that directive;
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
      notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 98/24/                    proceedings.


title: Case T-389/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — AIA v EUIPO — Casa Montorsi (MONTORSI F. & F.)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/49

         Action brought on 22 July 2016 — AIA v EUIPO — Casa Montorsi (MONTORSI F. & F.)
   (Case T-389/16)
   (2016/C 335/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Agricola italiana alimentare SpA (AIA) (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Casa Montorsi Srl (Vignola, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MONTORSI F. & F.’ — EU trade mark No 5 681 663

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1239/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2003 in Case T-34/03: André Hecq and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE) v Commission of the European Communities (Formal inadmissibility of the application — Legal person governed by private law — Instructions given to lawyer)

text:
C 239/8                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            4.10.2003
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 3 July 2003                                                                of 3 July 2003
in Case T-257/01, Frosch Touristik GmbH v Office for                         in Case T-34/03: André Hecq and Syndicat des Fonction-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                        naires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE) v Commission
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                                 of the European Communities ( 1)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-                        (Formal inadmissibility of the application — Legal person
                  ment — No need to adjudicate)                                  governed by private law — Instructions given to lawyer)
                          (2003/C 239/10)                                                               (2003/C 239/11)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-257/01: Frosch Touristik GmbH, established in
Munich (Germany), represented by G. Zeiner and B. Heaman-                    In Case T-34/03: André Hecq, official of the Commission,
Dunn, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg v                   residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), and Syndicat des
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                 fonctionnaires internationaux et européen (SFIE), established
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the intervener                    in Brussels (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer, against
before the Court of First Instance being Air Marin Flugreisen                Commission of the European Communities — application for
GmbH, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by C. Don-                  annulment of the decision of the Commission of 4 October
le, lawyer — Action brought against the decision of the Office               2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by Mr André Hecq, acting
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                    in his own name and in his capacity as Secretary-General of
Designs) of 31 July 2001 (Case R 789/1999-2) relating to                     the SFIE union against the decisions of the Commission laying
opposition proceedings between Frosch Touristik GmbH and                     down the rules on resources available to staff representatives
Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH — the Court of First Instance                      from 1 January 2002 and against the decision on the budgetary
(Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President and P. Men-                resources to be allocated to the SFIE union led by Mr Hecq and
gozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an                for damages — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
order on 3 July 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:             composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and
                                                                             J. D. Cooke, judges; H. Jung, registrar, has given an order on
                                                                             3 July 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
1)    There is no further need to adjudicate in this action;
                                                                             1.     The action is inadmissible insofar as it is brought by the
2)    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the Office;               Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens (SFIE).
3)    The intervener shall bear its own costs.                               2.     The SFIE shall bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.02.                                                       (1 ) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-546/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MILRAM — Earlier national word and figurative marks RAM — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of goods and signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)
   (Case T-546/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MILRAM - Earlier national word and figurative marks RAM - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of goods and signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nordmilch AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schneider, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lactimilk, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (Joined Cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nordmilch AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Michael Pulch against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-25/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 131 / 19
Action brought on 4 February 1997 by the Cooperative                      Instance of the European Communities on 6 February
d'Elevage de la Vendee, de l'Anjou et du Poitou (CEVAP)                   1997 by Michael Pulch, residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
and the Cooperative Agricole d'Eleveurs de Veaux du                       represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Bocage ( CEVB ) against the Council of the European                       address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                   Union                                  Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                           ( Case T-24/97)
                             ( 97/C 131 /45 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)                            — annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
                                                                                14 May 1996 , appointing the applicant in grade A7,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         step 3 , with effect from 1 October 1995 ,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 4 February 1997 by the Cooperative
d'Elevage de la Vendee, de l'Anjou et du Poitou ( CEVAP),                 — rule that the applicant should be reclassified in grade
established at Saint Laurent sur Sèvre ( France ), and the                      A6, step 3 , with effect from 1 October 1995 , with all
Cooperative Agricole d'Eleveurs de Veaux du Bocage                              the financial and other consequences which that
( CEVB ), established at Torchamp ( France ), represented by                    entails,
Francois Sarda, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn &                           — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants claim that the Court should :
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 2222/96 of                           The applicant, an official employed in Directorate-General
      18 November 1996, with all the consequences flowing                 I, contests his classification in grade A7. His claim is
     therefrom in law,                                                    based on his allegedly outstanding merits, as well as the
                                                                          professional experience gained by him as an administrator
— order the Council of the European Union to pay the                      in the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he
     costs .                                                              occupied a post at a grade corresponding to grade A5 in
                                                                          the Community establishment plan . The applicant refers
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       to two notes sent by his former Head of Unit and by the
                                                                          Director of Directorate B of DG I to the Staff Reports
                                                                          Committee, recommending his appointment in grade A6 .
The applicants, a series of independent French groups
producing veal for human consumption, contest Council
Regulation ( EC ) No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996                          The applicant makes the following assertions in support of
amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 on the common                       his claims :
organization of the market in beef and veal ( ] ), in
particular Article 1 ( 4 ) thereof, inasmuch as it requires the           — absence of a statement of reasons pursuant to the
Member States to pay an early marketing premium, the
conditions and methods of calculation of which have                             second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff
                                                                                Regulations, inasmuch as the defendant puts forward
caused them serious damage.
                                                                                no argument of any substance which might have
                                                                                justified the rejection of his application for
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                          classification in grade A6,
Case T-14/97 Sofivo and Others v. Commission, Case
T-15/97 Kermene and Vals v. Commission and Case T-20/
97 Sofivo and Others v. Commission (2 ).                                  — infringement of Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                                and of the general decision adopted by the
O OJ No L 296 , 21 . 11 . 1996 , p. 50 .                                         Commission with a view to introducing into its
(2 ) OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997.                                                  administrative practice the classification criteria ,
                                                                                flowing from the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance   of    5  October   1995   in   Case  T-17/95
                                                                                Alexopoulou v. Commission ('),
                                                                          — the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error
Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Michael Pulch                               of assessment, and failure to fulfil the duty to have
    against the Commission of the European Communities                           regard for the interests and welfare of the applicant, in
                            ( Case T-25/97)                                      that the appointing authority took into account
                              ( 97/C 131 /46 )
                                                                                neither his professional experience nor his outstanding
                                                                                qualifications .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (') [ 1995 ECR-SC 683 .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-103/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (First Chamber, Three Judges) by judgment of that court of 30 November 1998 in the case of P. Moskof A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision

text:
3.7.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 188/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                         Action brought on 29 March 1999 by the Italian Republic
Protodikio Thessalonikis (First Chamber, Three Judges)                        against the Commission of the European Communities
by judgment of that court of 30 November 1998 in the
case of P. Moskof A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon
                              Asfalision                                                              (Case C-107/99)
                          (Case C-103/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/16)
                          (1999/C 188/14)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-                  ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,                  Communities on 29 March 1999 by the Italian Republic,
Thessaloniki) (First Chamber, Three Judges) of 30 November                  represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
1998, received at the Court Registry on 22 March 1999, for a                Ivo M. Braguglia, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
preliminary ruling in the case of P. Moskof A.E. against the                the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie Adelaïde.
Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision (Social Security Institution) on
the following question:
Articles 6 and 7 of Legislative Decree 2348/1953 (FEK I,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
p. 75), as supplemented by Article 2 of Legislative Decree
2519/1953 (FEK I, p. 220) and amended by Articles 9 and                     — annul the contested decision of 16 December 1998 and,
11(4) of Legislative Decree 4104/1960 (FEK I, p. 147), provide                   in so far as necessary, also annul the other contested acts,
for the imposition of a special contribution at the rate of 0.5%
                                                                                in particular the letter of the Commission dated 19 January
on the value of tobacco exported outside the borders of the
                                                                                1999, the table thereto attached and the opinion of the
country, paid by the exporters at the time of export and
                                                                                Management Committee of 22 September 1998;
collected by the customs office through which the export of
tobacco takes place. The proceeds of the special contribution
were stipulated to be revenue of the special account for                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
tobacco workers, and now of the Pensions Branch of the
Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision (Social Security Institution); they
are made available for the continued payment of pensions
to pensioners of the former Tamio Asfaliseos Kapnergaton                    Pleas in law and main arguments
(Tobacco Workers’ Insurance Fund) which was abolished and
amalgamated with the Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision and for
the payment of pensions to the tobacco workers insured with
the abolished fund, as well as to persons entitled under them               1. The applicant Government has not been made aware of
on their death. Is it possible for that special contribution, with               any text for the contested decision and does not even
those features, to be regarded as a charge having equivalent                     know whether such a text exists other than in the letter of
effect to customs duty under Articles 9, 12 and 16 of the EEC                    the Secretary General of 9 January 1999 and the table
Treaty?                                                                          attached thereto. Accordingly the Italian Government must
                                                                                express its objection as if the contested decision were set
                                                                                out in the abovementioned letter.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi, Sezione V by order of                        The applicant claims that the decision as subscribed by the
that court of 14 January 1999 in the case of Oleifici                            Secretary General, rather than by the President or a
Italiani SpA against Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per                       Member of the European Commission is non-existent or is
           la Puglia - Sezione distaccata di Brindisi                            absolutely null and void.
                          (Case C-104/99)
                          (1999/C 188/15)                                        Next, it claims that no statement of reasons was provided
                                                                                for the decision, contrary to the provisions of Article 190
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           of the EC Treaty.
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributar-
ia Provinciale di Brindisi, Sezione V (Provincial Tax Court (Fifth
Chamber), Brindisi) of 14 January, which was received at the                2. The Commission has infringed Article 24 of Regulation
Court Registry on 23 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                     No 4253/88, (1) as amended by Article 1 of Regulation
the case of Oleifici Italiani SpA against Direzione Regionale                    No 2082/93, (2) in that it failed to undertake a suitable
delle Entrate per la Puglia — Sezione distaccata di Brindisi of a                examination of the case, the Member State was not
question seeking to ascertain whether the tax on the net assets                  involved and no irregularities were revealed.
of companies under Decree Law No 394 of 30 September
1994 is a charge having equivalent effect to other taxes levied             3. The Commission had no power to decide unilaterally to
on capital contributions and thus contrary to Article 10 of                      reduce or amend the purpose of the funds for Community
Directive 69/335/EEC (1) on indirect taxes on the raising of                     initiative programmes which had been granted.
capital.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.                          4. The partnership principle laid down in Article 4 of
                                                                                Regulation No 2052/88 (3) wasmanifestly breached by the
                                                                                contested Commission decision.


title: Case T-267/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — International air freight forwarding services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price — Evidence contained in an application for immunity — Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients — Code of Conduct rules on the duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation — Fiduciary duties — Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed — Choice of companies — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Equal treatment — Cooperation — Partial immunity from a fine — Unlimited jurisdiction — Settlement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission
   (Case T-267/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Evidence contained in an application for immunity - Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients - Code of Conduct rules on the duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation - Fiduciary duties - Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed - Choice of companies - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Partial immunity from a fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Settlement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
   (2016/C 136/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Bahn and Others (Berlin, Germany), Schenker AG (Essen, Germany), Schenker China Ltd (Shanghai, China), and Schenker International (HK) Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: F. Montag, B. Kacholdt, F. Hoseinian, lawyers, and by D. Colgan and T. Morgan, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by A. Dawes and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by A. Dawes and G. Meessen, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennelly and H. Mussa, Barristers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd and Schenker International (HK) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2004 in Case C-439/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Maritime Transport — Directive 95/21/EC — Maritime safety — Port State control of vessels — Insufficient number of inspections)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 22 June 2004
   in Case C-439/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Maritime Transport - Directive 95/21/EC - Maritime safety - Port State control of vessels - Insufficient number of inspections)
   (2004/C 201/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-439/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and W. Wils ) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to carry out a total number of annual inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of the number of individual vessels which entered its ports in 1999 and 2000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (OJ 1995 L 157, p. 1), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to carry out inspections of at least 25 % of the number of individual vessels which entered its ports in 1999 and 2000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control);

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-122/03: Action brought on 14 April 2003 by AGA AB against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 171/30             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        19.7.2003
Proprietor of mark or        Pentafarma-Sociedade        Técnico        The applicant claims that the Court should:
sign cited in the oppo-      Medicinal, LDA
sition proceedings:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the European Agency for the
                                                                              Evaluation of Medicinal Products of 4 February 2003,
Mark or sign cited in        The Portuguese word mark                         Document No EMEA/2044;
opposition:                  ‘DERMAZIL’ for goods in Class 5
                             (inter alia, pharmaceutical prep-
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                             arations and disinfectants)
Decision of the Oppo-        Registration refused in respect of
sition Division:             several goods in Classes 3 and 5
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                      Opposition Division in respect of
                             certain goods in Class 5. Dismissal        The applicant holds a Community marketing authorisation for
                             of the remainder of the applicant’s        the medicinal product, INOmax, whose active ingredient is
                             appeal.                                    nitrogen oxide (NO). On 25 January 2002, the competent
                                                                        authority in France granted another undertaking a national
                                                                        authorisation for a medicinal product called KINOX, whose
Pleas in law:                —     A similarity between the
                                                                        active ingredient is also nitrogen oxide. In response to that
                                   goods compared can be seen
                                                                        authorisation, the applicant lodged an application with the
                                   only in respect of goods in
                                                                        European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
                                   Class 5.
                                                                        (EMEA) to initiate the procedure under Article 31 of Directive
                             —     The final syllables, which           2001/83/EC (1) in respect of medicinal products containing
                                   alone are relevant, are clearly      nitrogen oxide. That application was rejected in the contested
                                   different in both sound and          decision on the ground that the applicant, as holder of a
                                   appearance.                          Community marketing authorisation, is not entitled to make
                                                                        such an application.
                             —     No likelihood of confusion
                                   exists.
                                                                        The applicant raises the following pleas in law:
                                                                        —     Infringement of essential procedural requirements. The
                                                                              applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted
                                                                              by staff in the secretariat of the EMEA, who, under the
                                                                              relevant procedural provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC
                                                                              and Regulation No 2309/93/EC ( 2) were not competent
                                                                              to adopt such a decision. Instead, the decision on whether
                                                                              to reject the application should have been taken by the
                                                                              Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) of
Action brought on 14 April 2003 by AGA AB against the                         the EMEA.
        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        —     Failure to observe the principle of the right to be heard,
                                                                              in so far as the applicant was not given any opportunity
                       (Case T-122/03)                                        to express its views on the matter before the decision to
                                                                              reject the application on procedural grounds was adopted.
                       (2003/C 171/52)
                                                                        —     Incorrect interpretation of Article 31 of Directive 2001/
                                                                              83/EC. The applicant submits that, contrary to the
                                                                              view of the EMEA, holders of Community marketing
                 (Language of the case: German)                               authorisations for medicinal products for human use are
                                                                              also entitled to lodge applications on the basis of that
                                                                              article.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               (1 ) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              (2 ) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 1.
European Communities on 14 April 2003 by AGA AB,
whose registered office is in Lidingö (Sweden), represented by
B. Sträter and M. Ambrosius, lawyers.


title: Case C-149/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Zoi Chatzi v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Interpretation of clause 2.1 of the framework agreement — Person granted the right to parental leave — Parental leave in the event of the birth of twins — Meaning of ‘birth’ — Taking account of the number of children born — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Zoi Chatzi v Ipourgos Ikonomikon
   (Case C-149/10) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Interpretation of clause 2.1 of the framework agreement - Person granted the right to parental leave - Parental leave in the event of the birth of twins - Meaning of ‘birth’ - Taking account of the number of children born - Principle of equal treatment)
   2010/C 301/04
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zoi Chatzi

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Interpretation of clause 2.1 of the framework agreement on parental leave annexed to Council Directive 96/34/ΕC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4), in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389) — Parental leave granted in the event of the birth of twins — Grant of a single period of parental leave in the event of the birth of twins — Infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of birth and a restriction on the right of twins that is not permitted by the principle of proportionality?

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 2.1 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, cannot be interpreted as conferring an individual right to parental leave on the child.

               2.

               Clause 2.1 of the framework agreement is not to be interpreted as requiring the birth of twins to confer entitlement to a number of periods of parental leave equal to the number of children born. However, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment, this clause obliges the national legislature to establish a parental leave regime which, according to the situation obtaining in the Member State concerned, ensures that the parents of twins receive treatment that takes due account of their particular needs. It is incumbent upon national courts to determine whether the national rules meet that requirement and, if necessary, to interpret those national rules, so far as possible, in conformity with European Union law.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.