title: Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-330/96)

text:
No C 370/4           I EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7 . 12 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                   Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
Genova by order of that court of 26 September 1996 in the                   the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
case of Ente Autonoma Fiera Internazionale di Genova
                                                                                Case C-330/96
against Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato/Ispettorato
        Compartimentale Monopoli di Stato di Genova                                                  ( 96/C 370/09 )
                            ( Case C-327/96 )
                              ( 96/C 370/07 )
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice on 8 October 1996 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   of the European Communities, represented by Maria
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di                        Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
Genova ( Genoa District Court) of 26 September 1996 ,                    service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
received at the Court Registry on 3 October 1996 , for a                 Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
preliminary ruling in the case of Ente Autonoma Fiera                    Centre, Kirchberg.
Internazionale di Genova against Ministero delle Finanze
dello Stato/Ispettorato Compartimentale Monopoli di Stato
di Genova on the question of the interpretation of                       The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by
Articles 86, 3 , 5 , 30 and 52 of the Treaty in relation to              failing to adopt or, in the alternative , to communicate to the
Article 15 of the Schedule of Requirements for premises for              Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
the retail sale of monopoly goods in so far as it imposes on             regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with Commission Directive 91 /244/EEC 0 ) of
retailers a positive obligation, supported by appropriate
                                                                         6 March 1991 amending Council Directive 79/409/EEC on
penalties, to promote domestically produced fine tobacco
and not to engage in, or allow, advertising for foreign                  the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic is in
product brands and tobaccos, whether from inside or                      breach of its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                         Directive .
outside the Community.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The period within which the Member States were to
Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                comply with the provisions of the Directive expired on
                                                                         31 July 1994 . The Commission notes that the Hellenic
                            ( Case C-329/96 )                            Republic has still not complied with the Directive .
                              ( 96/C 370/08 )
                                                                         f 1 ) OJNoL115 , 8 . 5 . 1991 , p . 41 .
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 8 October 1996 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 Gomez de la                Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( Case C-331/96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by                                          ( 96/C 370/ 10 )
failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate to the
Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC (!) of 21 May                    the Court of Justice on 8 October 199 6 by the Commission
 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild                of the European Communities, represented by Maria
fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its               Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
obligations under the Treaty and that Directive .                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                          Cruz, also of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Centre, Kirchberg.
The period within which the Member States were to                        The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by
comply with the provisions of the Directive expired on                    failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate to the
 5 June 1992 . The Commission notes that the Hellenic                     Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
Republic has still not complied with the Directive.                       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                          comply with Council Directive 92/72/EEC of 21 September
 (!) OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7 . 1992, p . 7.                                  1992 on air pollution by ozone f 1 ), the Hellenic Republic is
                                                                          in breach of its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                          Directive .


title: Case T-416/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Othman v Council

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/21

      Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Othman v Council
      (Case T-416/16)
      (2016/C 364/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

                  —

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

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-410/16, Makhlouf v Council.


title: Case F-99/09: Action brought on 8 December 2009 — Papathanasiou v OHIM

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/52

         Action brought on 8 December 2009 — Papathanasiou v OHIM
   (Case F-99/09)
   2010/C 134/88
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application, first, for a declaration of invalidity of the clause in the applicant’s contract providing for the automatic termination of the employment contract in the event that the applicant is not selected in an external selection procedure for OHIM and, second, for a declaration that selection procedures OHIM/AD/01/07, OHIM/AD/02/07, OHIM/AST/01/07 and OHIM/AST/02/02 have no effect on the applicant’s contract. In addition, application for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the letter from OHIM of 12 March 2009 and annul the decisions of OHIM contained in it, according to which the applicant’s employment relationship is terminated with eight months’ notice from 16 March 2009, and declare that the applicant’s employment relationship with OHIM is ongoing and has not been terminated. To the extent that the Tribunal considers it necessary, the applicant claims that the Tribunal should also set aside further letters from OHIM of 3 August 2009 (three-month suspension of notice period) and 9 October 2009 (rejection of complaint), classified by the applicant as related;

               —

               set aside or declare invalid the cancellation clause in Article 5 of the applicant’s employment contract with OHIM, and in the alternative,

                           —

                           declare that the applicant’s contract of employment cannot in future be terminated on the basis of the cancellation clause in her employment contract;

                           —

                           in the further alternative, declare that, in any event, the selection procedures referred to in OHIM’s letter of 12 March 2009 were not capable of entailing negative consequences on the basis of the cancellation clause;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage arising from the decisions referred to in the first paragraph of the application;

               —

               in the event that, owing to OHIM’s unlawful conduct, the applicant’s actual employment has already ended at the date of the Tribunal’s decision and/or payment of the remuneration owed to the applicant by OHIM, notwithstanding the continuation of the employment relationship:

                           —

                           declare that OHIM is under an obligation to continue to employ the applicant under the same conditions as hitherto and to reinstate her, and order OHIM to compensate the applicant fully for the material damage suffered by her, in particular by paying any outstanding salary and all other expenses incurred by the applicant as a result of OHIM’s unlawful conduct (after deduction of unemployment benefit received);

                           —

                           in the alternative, in the event that, in the present situation, for legal or practical reasons the applicant is not reinstated or re-employed under the same conditions as hitherto, order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation for the material damage arising from the unlawful termination of her employment corresponding to the difference between her actual anticipated lifetime earnings and the lifetime earnings the applicant would have achieved if the contract had remained in force, taking into account pension benefits and other entitlements;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case T-450/04: Action brought on 9 November 2004 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/27

         Action brought on 9 November 2004 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-450/04)
   (2005/C 31/51)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 November 2004 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom, established in Paris and in Boulogne Billancourt (France) respectively, represented by L. Vogel, J. Vogel, F. Sureau, D. Théophile, B. Amory and A. Verheyden, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Decision C(2004)3060 of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 August 2004;

               —

               annul Article 2 of that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is directed against Decision C(2004)3060 of 2 August 2004, whereby the European Commission considered that the shareholder's advance granted by France to the Groupe France Télécom in December 2002, in the form of a credit line of EUR 9,000 million, placed in the context of the statements made since 2002, constituted State aid incompatible with the common market. The Commission also decided that that aid should not be recovered.
   As regards the finding that the measure in question constituted aid, the applicants further criticise the decision in issue for having refused to classify as State aid the commitments resulting from the statements of the French Government, which had publicly supported France Télécom's credit between July and October 2002, although that undertaking, which was heavily in debt, was making enormous losses.
   In support of their claims, the applicants allege that:

               —

               by refusing to classify as State aid the statements of the French Government of July, September and October 2002, taken either individually or collectively, the Commission misapplied Article 87 of the Treaty. The defendant should have found in that regard that the statements had conferred on France Télécom an advantage which distorted both competition and trade between Member States;

               —

               the contested decision is based on contradictory and inadequate reasons. The applicants maintain on that point that, after finding that the French Government's statements combined all the characteristics of State aid, it did not draw the logical conclusion and classify the statements as aid;

               —

               as concerns the refusal to order recovery of the aid, there is a breach of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 of the Treaty and also a breach of essential procedural requirements in that the reasons are inadequate. The applicants maintain that the Commission was perfectly capable of quantifying the amount of the aid without infringing France's rights of defence and that recovery of the aid in question would not in this case have constituted a breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-113/99: Action brought on 7 May 1999 by The Galileo Company and Galileo International L.L.C against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 226/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
had he not been appointed to that post on the conclusion of              The applicants consider that both the exclusive rights clause
an irregular procedure for which he is in no way responsible,            concerning the general channels and the clause granting
he would by now, in the course of a normal career, have                  preference to TPS by its associates for the special interest
reached the grade of A 4 and could apply for the post.                   channels and the television services which constitute incidental
                                                                         restrictions on the TPS joint venture, should be afforded the
The applicant considers that, by acting in that way, the                 same treatment as the joint venture. B refusing to acknowledge
Parliament has infringed Article 233 EC (ex Article 176),                the incidental nature of the restrictions deriving from those
Articles 4, 7(1), 29(1), 45 and 46 of the Staff Regulations of           clauses, the Commission is forcing the applicants to request
Officials and the internal rules and provisions adopted by the           on a regular basis the renewal of the exemptions granted,
Parliament with regard to promotion and career development,              which runs counter to Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) and the
and that it has violated the principle of equal treatment, the           principle of legal certainty. In the alternative, the applicants
duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials,          claim that the Commission misapplied the exemption criteria
and the principles of proportionality and of the protection              provided for in the third paragraph of the aforementioned
of legitimate expectations. He furthe1 maintains that the                Article 81, and misassessed the minimal duration of the
contravention’s of the above-mentioned rules and principles              exemption.
form part of a process of misuse of powers designed to secure
the appointment to the post in issue of a candidate chosen in            So far as concerns the clause referred to in Article 2 of
advance.                                                                 the contested decision, the applicants emphasise that the
                                                                         Commission, while considering their undertaking not to
                                                                         compete to be a restriction incidental to the setting up of the
                                                                         TPS, has nevertheless decided to restrict to three years the
                                                                         incidental status of that restriction. In their view, by adopting
                                                                         that approach, the Commission has not complied with the
                                                                         rules which it had itself laid clown in the 24th Report on
Action brought on 10 May 1999 by Métropole Télévision                    Competition Policy (1994), thus infringing Article 81 EC (ex
— M6, Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux, France Télécom and                        Article 85) and the principle of legal certainty.
Télévision Française 1 — TF1 against Commission of the
                    European Communities
                        (Case T-112/99)
                        (1999/C 226/60)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Action brought on 7 May 1999 by The Galileo Company
                                                                         and Galileo International L.L.C against the Council of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                        European Union
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 May 1999 by Métropole
Télévision - M6, Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), Suez-Lyonnaise des                                  (Case T-113/99)
Eaux, Nanterre (France), France Télécom Paris, and Télévision
Française 1 - TF1, Paris, represented by Didier Théophile,
Patrick Dunaud and Patricia Elsen, of the Paris Bar, with an                                     (1999/C 226/61)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse
May. 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in part the Commission Decision of 3 March 1999                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
    relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    (Case IV/36.237 - TPS) (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 6) to the extent            Communities on 7 May 1999 by The Galileo Company and
    of annulling Articles 2 and 3 thereof;                               Galileo International L.L.C., represented by Richard Plender,
                                                                         Sara Masters, Katherine Holmes and Daniel Austin, with an
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,
                                                                         Hoss and Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants criticise the Commission for having granted
only a temporary negative clearance of three years in respect            — annul Article 1(7)(b), second indent, of Council Regulation
of certain clauses in the agreements setting up the Télévision               (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 to the extent to
par Satellite (TPS) company, namely, on the one hand, the                    which that measure applies to operators of Computer
clause on the exclusive transmission of the four channels on                 Reservation Systems in being on the date when the
TPS and the clause on the special-interest channels and                      measure was made; and
television services provided by TPS (Article 3 of the contested
decision) and, on the other, the non-competition clause (Article         — order the Council to pay the costs of the action including
2 of the contested decision).                                                those of the applicants.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants in the present case challenge Article 1(7)(b),             — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 of
second indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of                       19 February 1999 in so far as the name Pays d’Auge/Pays
8th February 1999, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89                        d’Auge-Cambremer registers it;
on a code of conduct for computer reservations systems
(CRSs) (1). This article inserts a point (v) in Article 6(1)(b) of        — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
the amended regulation, according to which group of airlines
and/or subscribers is entitled to purchase data for common
processing.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit that, on the premise that it imposes
on operators of CRSs an obligation to supply Marketing                    Since 1998 the applicant has manufactured and sold sider, in
Information Data transfer (MIDT) only once, to group. of                  particular under the names ‘La Cidraie — grand cru du Pays
airlines having a common interest in the common processing                d’Auge’ and ‘Jacques Toy — grand cru cidre du Pays d’Auge’.
of those data, article 6(1)(b) infringes the principle of pro-            The applicant objects to the contested regulation or the ground
portionality. That is so for two reasons:                                 that its application would prohibit the applicant from selling
                                                                          its cider under the name ‘Pays d’Auge’.
— First, if that provision is to be construed as permitting
     airlines to form groups to purchase MIDT, irrespective of
     the size of the airlines concerned or the number of                  The pleas in law made against the regulation in issue are in
     participants in the group, the measure is excessive and is           two parts:
     not necessary to achieve the aim identified during the
     process leading to the adoption of Article 6(1)(b), namely
                                                                          — as to the form, the procedure which led to the adoption of
     to enable travel agents to join together in groups to
                                                                               Regulation No 378/1999 is invalidated by the fact that the
     purchase MIDT.
                                                                               applicant’s opposition to registration of the name ‘Pays
                                                                               d’Auge’ was not forwarded to the Commission;
— Second, the measure is disproportionate by reason of the
     very serious financial implications it has for CRS operators
     engaged in supplying MIDT at the date of the contested               — as to the merits, the regulation which registers the name
     decision.                                                                 ‘Pays d’Auge’ in respect of sider fails to comply with the
                                                                               conditions set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92
                                                                               in that it applies to a product which has no specific features
The applicants also submit that the obligation to state the                    as regards its recommended method of manufacture and is
reasons on which a measure is based has been infringed.                        produced in such a way as to offer no guarantee to the
                                                                               consumer.
(1) OJ L 40 of 13.2.1999, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
Action brought on 11 May 1999 by CSR Pampryl against                      Européen Promotion ‘SEP’ against Commission of the
       the Commission of the European Communities                                               European Communities
                         (Case T-114/99)                                                             (Case T-115/99)
                         (1999/C 226/62)                                                            (1999/C 226/63)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 May 1995 by CSR Pampryl, a                     European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
company whose registered office is in La Courneuve, France,               Européen Promotion ‘SEP’, whose registered office is at Saint
represented by Dominique Couturier-Heller, of the Paris Bar,              Vit (France) represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                  Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.


title: Case C-463/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2013 — Stanley International Betting Ltd and Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/44

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2013 — Stanley International Betting Ltd and Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato
   (Case C-463/13)
   2013/C 344/76
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

      Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR I-0000] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costa and Cifone to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?


title: Case F-126/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 — Borbély v Commission (Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Installation allowance — Daily subsistence allowance — Travel expenses on taking up an appointment — Place of recruitment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 — Borbély v Commission
   (Case F-126/05) (1)

   (Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Installation allowance - Daily subsistence allowance - Travel expenses on taking up an appointment - Place of recruitment - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   (2007/C 42/82)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Andrea Borbély (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Stötzel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing the applicant the benefit of the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance and reimbursement of travel expenses following the establishment of her place of recruitment as Brussels
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Declares that the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 March 2005 is annulled in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant the installation allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and the daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 10(1) of that Annex;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the applicant, in accordance with the rules of the Staff Regulations in force, those allowances plus default interest, from the dates on which they were payable respectively and up to the date of their payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing transactions, as applicable during the relevant period, increased by two points;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006, p. 54.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Patrick Salez against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-92/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 166/25
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Patrick Salez against                 — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
         the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-92/97)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 166/51 )
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                   (Language of the case: French)                       Case T-16/97 0 ).
An action against the Commission of the European                        (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
by Patrick Salez, residing in Brussels, represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.                                              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Brigitte Nau against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       ( Case T-94/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/53
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                      (Language of the case: French)
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      by Brigitte Nau, residing at Strombeek-Bever ( Belgium),
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of Article 31
C ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                         (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                             adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                             expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Minh-Hong Pham
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                           ( Case T-93/97)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 166/52 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                        Case T-16/97 ( M.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
by Minh-Hong Pham, residing in Brussels ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Marie Louise Brichard
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-95/97)
— annul the Commission's decision of 27 June 1996                                                   ( 97/C 166/54 )
     rejecting      the   applicant's    request  that   it   give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31                             (Language of the case: French)
      ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     by Marie Louise Brichard, residing in Brussels, represented


title: Case C-132/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
2.6.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 161/9
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission                        Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                Austria                                                                   Austria
                          (Case C-132/01)
                                                                                (Case C-133/01)
                          (2001/C 161/16)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/17)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, with an               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 March
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Gerard                2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European            represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, with an
Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard
                                                                         Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European
                                                                         Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures necessary in order to transpose into national
      law the provisions of Council Directive 97/41/EC of                (1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to
      25 June 1997 (1) amending Directives 76/895/EEC,                         adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
      86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the                    measures necessary in order to transpose into national
      fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and                   law the provisions of Commission Directive 98/82/EC of
      on, respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs              27 October 1998(1) amending the Annexes to Council
      of animal origin, and certain products of plant origin,                  Directives 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on
      including fruit and vegetables, the Republic of Austria                  the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and             and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain
      under the said directive;                                                products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables
                                                                               respectively, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under the EC Treaty and under the said
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      directive;
                                                                         (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
of Article 249 and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is
such as to oblige Member States to adopt the measures
necessary in order fully to transpose directives which are
addressed to them into their national legal order prior to the           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit         in Case C-132/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition prescribed
laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of the directive           by Article 5(2) of the directive expired on 30 April 1999.
expired on 31 December 1999, but Austria has not enacted
the requisite provisions.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 290, 1998, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
(1) OJ L 184, 1997, p. 33.


title: Joined Cases T-134/03 and T-135/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  27 September 2005  — Common Market Fertilizers v Commission of the European Communities (Remission of import duties — Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 — Invoicing direct to importer —  Group of experts  within the meaning of Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Rights of the defence —  Obvious negligence  within the meaning of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2005 — Common Market Fertilizers v Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases T-134/03 and T-135/03) (1)

   (Remission of import duties - Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 - Invoicing direct to importer - ‘Group of experts’ within the meaning of Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Rights of the defence - ‘Obvious negligence’ within the meaning of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2005/C 296/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Common Market Fertilizers (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by A. Sutton and N. Flandin, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by X. Lewis, Agent)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Decisions C (2002) 5217 final and C (2002) 5218 final of 20 December 2002 finding that the remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the applications.

               2)

               Orders the applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-168/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro v Crewlink Ltd

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro v Crewlink Ltd
   (Case C-168/16)
   (2016/C 191/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro

      Respondent: Crewlink Ltd

      Question referred

   Taking into account:

               —

               the need for predictability of approach and legal certainty, which governed the adoption of the rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings laid down in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), (‘the Brussels Convention’) and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) (see, in particular, the judgment of 19 July 2012 in Mahamdia (C-154/11, EU:C:2012:491, paragraphs 44 and 46),

               —

               the particular features of the European air navigation sector, in which air crews working for airlines whose registered office is in one of the Member States of the European Union and who are assigned to that airline by another company whose registered office is in the same State, who fly over, on a daily basis, the territory of the European Union, departing from a home base that may, as in the present case, be located in another Member State,

               —

               the particular circumstances of the present case as described in the grounds of the present order for reference,

               —

               the criterion derived from the concept of ‘home base’ (as defined in Annex III to Regulation No 3922/91), which is used in Regulation No 883/2004 to determine which social security legislation applies, with effect from 28 June 2012, to airline flight crews and cabin crews,

               —

               the approach taken in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the terms of the judgments cited in the grounds of the present order for reference,

         may the concept of the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 be interpreted as being comparable to that of ‘home base’, defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 as ‘the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period or a series of duty periods and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned’, for the purpose of determining the Contracting State (and thus the jurisdiction) on whose territory employees habitually carry out their work where those employees are employed as members of the air crew of an airline, subject to the laws of a Member State of the European Union, that transports passengers internationally by air throughout the territory of the European Union, since that criterion of connection, based on the ‘home base’, in the sense of ‘the effective centre of the work relationship’, inasmuch as all the employees systematically begin and end their working day at that place, organise their daily work there and, throughout the period of their contractual relationship maintain their residence there, is the criterion which both indicates the closest connection with a Contracting State and ensures the most satisfactory protection of the weaker party in the contractual relationship?


title: Case T-329/00: Action brought on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.12.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant accuses the Commission of infringing its right
                                                                        to a hearing, because on its inspection of the files it was
                                                                        not presented with all the relevant supporting documents.
The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for Official               Moreover, because of the improper conduct of the Spanish
Publications of the European Communities, is contesting the             authorities and the Commission, particularly in the area of
decision rejecting his request to be assigned to a third country        quota administration, special circumstances existed within the
pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of            meaning of Article 13 of the Regulation. It also maintains that
officials.                                                              there is no proof or any convincing evidence of alleged forgery,
                                                                        and that the Commission has explained the facts in a defective
The pleas in law and main arguments are largely identical with          and incomplete manner.
those relied upon in Case T-202/00.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
                                                                            repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979
                                                                            L 175, p. 1).
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch
Ex- und Import GmbH against the Commission of the
                    European Communities
                                                                        Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Stefano Cocchi
                        (Case T-329/00)
                                                                        and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                        (2000/C 372/30)
                                                                                (Case T-330/00)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/31)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch                                    (Language of the case: French)
Ex- und Import GmbH, established in Troisdorf, Germany,
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechstsanwalt, Cologne.                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 October 2000 by Stefano
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Cocchi and Evi Hainz, residing in Italy, represented by Georges
                                                                        Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
—     annul Commission Decision K(2000) 2207 endg. of
      25 July 2000 (REM 49/99);
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        —     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to
                                                                              Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 16 March 2000 and of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               22 February 2000 not to accept the applicants’ candi-
                                                                              dature for the posts advertised in vacancy notices
                                                                              COM/R/5530/00 of 24 February 2000 and
The action is brought against the Commission’s decision of                    COM/R/5500/00 of 24 January 2000, or, in the alterna-
25 July 2000, in which the latter refused the application by                  tive, to annul those vacancy notices;
the Federal Republic of Germany to grant the applicant
remission of import duties for the importation of beef on the           —     annul the appointments made by the AECC, of unknown
basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1). The                   date, in the context of the recruitment procedures put in
Commission maintains in the contested decision that the                       motion by those two vacancy notices;
extracts submitted by the applicant at the time of import
clearance were forgeries, and that licence forgeries fall within
the business risk of the applicant. Neither the Spanish auth-           —     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
orities which issued the licences nor the Commission had                      for the damage suffered as a result of that decision, such
acted improperly, so the normal business risk to be borne by                  sum being set ex aequo et bono and provisionally;
importers of goods benefiting from customs advantages was
not exceeded.                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs.


title: Case T-216/00: Action brought on 21 August 2000 by Antena 3 de Televisión, S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 302/32               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.10.2000
—     Error in the reasoning;                                            Action brought on 23 August 2000 by Cooperativa Mare
                                                                         Azzurro scrl and Others against Commission of the
—     The Commission unlawfully concluded that, notwith-                                    European Communities
      standing a marked upward trend, the market in question
      is in decline;
                                                                                (Case T-218/00)
—     The decision is vitiated in so far as it uses a mean annual
      rate for the entire manufacturing industry equivalent
      to 5,78%;                                                                                (2000/C 302/75)
—     The Commission failed to notify the applicant of the
      principal facts underlying its decision in regard to the use
      of the coefficient of 0,75.                                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 August 2000 by Cooperativa
                                                                         Mare Azzurro scrl and Others, represented by Giuseppe
                                                                         Boscolo, of the Venice Bar.
Action brought on 21 August 2000 by Antena 3 de
Televisión, S.A. against the Commission of the European                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
                          Communities
                                                                         —     annul wholly or, in the alternative, in part the contested
                         (Case T-216/00)                                       decision and/or in any event declare the contested
                                                                               decision to be of no effect in respect of the applicants
                         (2000/C 302/74)                                       and furthermore order the defendant to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicants in the present case, cooperatives which provide
European Communities on 21 August 2000 by Antena 3 de                    services to several hundred small fishing undertakings
Televisión, established in Madrid, represented by Fernando              operating from Venice and Chioggia, challenge the contested
Pombo Garcı́a, Emiliano Garayar Gutiérrez and Rosario Alonso             decision of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and
Pérez-Villanueva, lawyers.                                               Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions
                                                                         under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May                    That decision declares certain aid received by those undertak-
      2000 (‘Eurovision’); and                                           ings to be incompatible with the common market.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred by
      Antena 3 de Televisión, S.A. in the present proceedings.          In support of their application, the applicants claim that:
                                                                         —     The Commission did not find that the aid in question
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                constitutes an arrangement for a three-year period and
                                                                               is thus not recoverable under Article 15 of Council
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                      Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
put forward in Case T-185/00 Métropole Télévision M 6 (1).                     down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of
                                                                               the EC Treaty (2).
(1) Not yet published.
                                                                         —     The contested decision fails to take into account the
                                                                               situation concerning rents and occupancy in Chioggia’s
                                                                               old town, inasmuch as it does not apply the derogation
                                                                               provided for in Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht, by judgment of that court of 13 June 1997 in the criminal proceedings against Johannes Martinus Lemmens (Case C-226/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 228/ 13
        awarded under the procedure therein mentioned or                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements
        are the provisions of the Directive relevant to the                 rechtbank, Maastricht, by judgment of that court of
        services mentioned in Annex I ( A ) capable of                      13 June 1997 in the criminal proceedings against Johannes
        fulfilling the preconditions laid down in the                                               Martinus Lemmens
        abovementioned case ?                                                                         ( Case C-226/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/27)
6.      Is there under Article 5 or other provisions of the
        EEC Treaty, or under Directive 92/50/EEC, an                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        obligation on the State to interfere in existing legal              European Communities by judgment of the Arrondisse
        situations concluded for an indefinite period or for                mentsrechtbank ( District Court), Maastricht, of 13 June
        several years but which were not entered into in                    1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 June
        accordance with the abovementioned Directive .                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                            against Johannes Martinus Lemmens on the following
(') OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992, p . 1 .                                     questions :
( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
(■') Case 41 /74 [ 1974 ] ECR 1337.                                         1 . Can a defendant in criminal proceedings instituted for
                                                                                an offence contrary to Article 8 (2 ) ( a ) of the Wegen
                                                                                verkeerswet ( Road Traffic Law) 1994 successfully rely
                                                                                on the application of the Regeling Ademanalyse
                                                                                ( Regulation on breath analysis ) ( Ned.Stcrt 1987, 187),
                                                                                as amended, laying down further rules concerning the
                                                                                requirements for breath-analysis apparatus and the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs                         tests which such apparatus must undergo, being set
gerichtshof, by order of that court of 26 May 1997, in the                       aside
               case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vorarlberg
                           ( Case C-224/97 )                                     — where, for the purposes of the investigation
                                                                                referred to in Article 8 ( 2 ) ( a ) of the Wegenverkeer
                             ( 97/C 228/26 )                                          swet 1994, that Regulation is based, pursuant to
                                                                                Article 65 of the Invoeringswet Wegenverkeerswet
                                                                                ( Law implementing the Road Traffic Law) 1994,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                on Article 163 of the Wegenverkeerswet viewed in
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge                                   conjunction with Article 5 of the Besluit Alcoho
richtshof (Administrative Court of Appeal ) of 26 May                                 londerzoeken ( Decree on the conduct of tests to
 1997, received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1997, for                            determine alcohol level ) ( Stb . 1987, 432 ), as
a preliminary ruling in the case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vor                          amended,
arlberg on the following questions :                                             — in view of the failure to notify the Regulation to
                                                                                the European Commission, as required by Article 8
                                                                                of Directive 83/189/EEC O ?
 1 . Are the provisions concerning the freedom to provide
       services to be interpreted as precluding a Member
                                                                             2 . Should a court in criminal proceedings of the kind
       State from prohibiting the operator of a yachting
       harbour, on pain of criminal prosecution, from hiring
                                                                                referred to above disapply that Regulation of its own
                                                                                motion on account of the failure to notify it as
       out more than a specific quota of moorings to boat
       owners who are resident in another Member State ?                         required ?
                                                                             (') OJ No L 109 , 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .
 2 . Does Community law, in particular the provisions
       concerning the freedom to provide services in
       conjunction with Article 5 of the EC Treaty and
       Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of
       accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of                 Action brought on 18 June 1997 by the Commission
       Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                             of the European Communities against the Portuguese
       adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                                                       Republic
       Union is founded ( OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994, p. 21 ;
       OJ No L 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995, p. 1 ), give the provider of the                                       ( Case C-227/97)
       services referred to in question 1 above, who is                                                    ( 97/C 228/28 )
       resident in Austria, the right to assert that the
       prohibition issued in the terms set out in question 1 in
       an administrative decision ( Bescheid) adopted in 1990                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
       in regard to a specific person should not be applied in               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
       decisions    of the      Austrian      courts and    authorities      on 18 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
       adopted after 1 January 1995 ?                                        Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                             of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                             service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-10/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — FVB v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark FVB — Earlier national word mark FVD — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — FVB v OHIM
   (Case T-10/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FVB - Earlier national word mark FVD - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 285/68)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: P. Koehler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vermögensberatung Deutschland mbH, formerly FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented: first by J. Mattes and P. Heigl, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2006 (Case R 1343/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH and FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Action brought on 8 October 1998 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-361/98)

text:
5.12.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 378/9
Action brought on 8 October 1998 by the Italian Republic                       distribution of traffic should be considered
   against the Commission of the European Communities                          contrary to Community law if they do not respect
                       (Case C-361/98)                                         the principle of proportionality; and therefore
                         (98/C 378/16)
                                                                          (b) in assessing in terms of proportionality the decrees
                                                                               of the Minister of Transport relating to the Milan
An action against the Commission of the European                               airport system, which constitute the grounds for the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                         prohibition imposed on the Italian Government.
the European Communities on 8 October 1998 by the
Italian Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia and Pier
Giorgio Ferri, Avvocati dello Stato, with an address for             3. In the alternative and in the event that the Court does
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue                       not uphold the complaints made in the foregoing
Marie-AdeÂlaïde.                                                          pleas, it is strongly disputed that the abovementioned
                                                                          national provisions, in imposing restrictions on the
                                                                          freedom to provide services, have contravened the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               principle of proportionality, as the Commission claims
                                                                          as a matter of principle applicable in this case.
Ð annul the contested decision of the Commission of
     16 September 1998;
                                                                     4. Paragraphs 29 to 46 of the contested decision concern
                                                                          the assessment of the Italian decrees from the point
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   of view of non-discrimination. The Commission's
                                                                          reasoning in alleging that the criteria laid down by the
                                                                          Italian provisions to identify the traffic to be relocated
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          from Linate to Malpensa airport are in breach of the
                                                                          prohibition under Article 8(1) appears flawed for the
1. In the view of the Italian Government, the                             following reasons.
     Commission's position on the extent of its power of
     decision finds no support in the legislative provision
                                                                          (a) The Commission held that the criterion based on
     which convers its competence (Article 8(3)) (1); the
                                                                               volume of traffic, even if it led to the selection of
     wording of Article 8(3) identifies the extent of its
                                                                               the Milan-Rome-Milan route as the only traffic
     supervisory power sufficiently clearly in terms of the
                                                                               retained at Linate airport, cannot be held to be
     need for a national measure to conform with the
                                                                               directly discriminatory in as much as that route is
     provisions of Article 8(1).
                                                                               open to all Community air carriers.
     The Commission interprets the provision conferring
                                                                          (b) The second and more serious flaw in the
     the power of decision widely, applying it to cases and
                                                                               Commission's reasoning is that it assessed the
     situations other than those contemplated therein.
                                                                               effects of relocating traffic at Malpensa airport in
                                                                               the light of the existing rather than the future
     Such an interpretation appears contrary to the                            situation: that is to say looking at the airport of
     principles of the Treaty as regards the institutional                     Malpensa as it was rather than as it will be after
     order of the Community and, in particular, to the                         the opening of the new facilities scheduled for
     principle of the strict legality of the Commission's                      25 October 1998.
     power of decision under Article 155 of the Treaty.
                                                                     (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (OJ L 240, 24.8.1992,
     The power conferred by Article 8(3) amounts to                      p. 8).
     accepting a breach of Community law at the expense
     of a State; the prohibition of discrimination in
     Article 8(1) is a legal rule in the application of which
     there is no discretion.
2. The second plea of the application alleges that the               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
     contested decision is not well-founded in law in as             Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 October 1998 in
     much as it determines that the Italian decrees under            the case of Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH against
     consideration contravene Community law in not                                        Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
     observing the principle of proportionality.
                                                                                (Case C-365/98)
     In the view of the Italian Government the decision is                                     (98/C 378/17)
     flawed:
     (a) in terms of its legal premisses on the basis of             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         which it is claimed that the national provisions on         European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht


title: Case T-308/05: Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Italian Republic/Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/16

         Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Italian Republic/Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-308/05)
   (2005/C 257/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties:

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought:
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul memorandum No 05272 of 7 June 2005 of the Regional Policy Directorate General of the European Commission — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — Italy and Malta — concerning POR Campania Ob. 1 — 2005-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007) — Declaration of interim expenditure and request for payment;

               —

               annul memorandum No 05453 of 8 June 2005 of the Regional Policy Directorate General of the European Commission — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning DOCUP Ob. 2 — Latium 2005-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 009) — Payment from the Commission different from the amount requested;

               —

               annul memorandum No 05726 of 17 June 2005 of the Regional Policy Directorate General of the European Commission — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning POR Apulia 2005-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 PO 009) — Payment from the Commission different from the amount requested;

               —

               annul memorandum No 05728 of 17 June 2005 of the Regional Policy Directorate General of the European Commission — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning POR Apulia 2005-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 PO 009) — Payment from the Commission different from the amount requested;

               —

               annul memorandum No 05952 of 17 June 2005 of the Regional Policy Directorate General of the European Commission — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning POR Apulia 2005-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 PO 009) — Payment from the Commission different from the amount requested;

               —

               annul all related and prior measures; and

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case T-694/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Ipatau v Council

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/25

         Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Ipatau v Council
   (Case T-694/13)
   2014/C 93/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-693/13 Mikhalchanka v Council.


title: Action brought on 26 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-427/98)

text:
C 20/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.1.1999
on 26 November 1998 by the Commission of the                             Action brought on 26 November 1998 by the Commission
European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                           of the European Communities against the Federal
Gouloussis, Commission Legal Adviser, with an address                                         Republic of Germany
for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez
                                                                                (Case C-427/98)
de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                (1999/C 20/37)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
Ð declare that, by imposing for the benefit of the                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    Lawyers' Fund and the Lawyers' Social Fund                           Communities on 26 November 1998 by the Commission
    additional charges on the formation of public limited                of the European Communities, represented by Enrico
    companies and limited liability companies, on the                    Traversa, a Member of the Commission's Legal Service
    promulgation and alteration of their memoranda and                   and Dr Andreas Buschmann, a national expert seconded
    articles of association and on the increase of their                 to the Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agents, with
    capital, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its              an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
    obligations under the EC Treaty and in particular                    Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Commission's
    under Articles 7 and 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C-254, Luxembourg.
    amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC (2) of
    10 June 1985;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) Find that the Federal Republic of Germany failed to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Sixth
                                                                               Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on
                                                                               the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
Since the total indirect tax burden in Greece on the                           relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of
formation of a company, on the promulgation and                                value added tax; uniform basis of assessment, in that
alteration of its memorandum and articles of association                       it failed to adopt any provisions enabling the basis of
and on an increase in its capital exceeds by far the upper                     taxation to be adjusted where price reduction
limit laid down in Article 7 of Directive 69/335/EEC, as                       coupons have been granted.
amended by Directive 85/303/EEC, the provisions of
Greek law which impose the duties at issue are
inconsistent with Community law.
                                                                         (2) Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                               costs.
Contrary to the assertions of the Hellenic Republic, the
pertinent charges:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(1) cannot be described as employers' contributions,
     because there is no link of an insurance nature
     between the persons liable to pay them and the                      In the Commission's view, German law infringes the
     insurance bodies entitled to the payments;                          principle of neutrality of turnover tax as expressed in
                                                                         Article 11 Part A 1(a) and Part C 1 of the Sixth Directive,
                                                                         in that it does not permit a taxpayer (such as a
(2) do not cease to be indirect duties because (a) they are              manufacturer) who, upon presentation of a coupon,
     not paid as income into the State budget in its                     reimburses a part of the final sale price of products, which
     narrow sense but into the budget of public legal                    he does not deliver to his purchasers direct, to reduce his
     persons, (b) the purpose for which they are levied is               basis of taxation accordingly. The German Government's
     fixed by law and (c) they are imposed irrespective of               administrative notice of 15 April 1998, following the
     the tax-paying capacity of the persons liable to pay                judgment of the Court of Justice in Elida Gibbs (2),
     them;                                                               distinguishes between reimbursements to the end user (in
                                                                         exchange for a price reimbursement coupon') and
                                                                         reimbursements to the retailer (in exchange for a price
(3) are not in the nature of consideration or fees for the               reduction coupon'). However, ultimately neither the
     services provided by the lawyers.                                   recipient of the reimbursement nor the specific name given
                                                                         to the coupon is material since, in the Commission's view
                                                                         (based on the Elida Gibbs judgment), the law should treat
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
(2) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.                                          both variants alike. The basis of taxation applied to a
                                                                         taxpayer (such as a manufacturer) who grants
                                                                         reimbursements on the final price of his products to
                                                                         stimulate sales should be reduced by the amount
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/23
reimbursed (less turnover tax), regardless of which                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
purchaser receives the reimbursement (taxpayer or end
user) and how many people there are in the chain of
purchasers. There is no need to adjust the provisional               The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
turnover since it is the retailer who is taxed on the net            paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
value of the coupons which the end user presents to                  Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member
obtain a price reduction when purchasing the goods. Thus             States to adopt the measures necessary for the
the applicable law on turnover tax in the Federal Republic           implementation of directives within the time-limit
of Germany, and in particular Paragraphs 10(1) and 17(1)             prescribed therein, and to communicate those measures to
of the Law on Turnover Tax, as it is to be applied                   the Commission forthwith. The time-limit in question
pursuant to the German Government's binding                          expired on 21 November 1996 but the Kingdom of
administrative notice of 15 April 1998, infringes Article 11         Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures.
Part 1 1(a) and Article 11 Part C 1 of the Sixth Directive,
since those provisions of that Directive give expression to
the principle that turnover taxes are to be neutral in that          (1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 14.
the end result should not be that a taxpayer who, because
he has to pay tax on a higher amount than he received for
his supply, ultimately bears part of the turnover tax.
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(2) Judgment in Case C-317/94 [1996] ECR I-5368.
                                                                     Action brought on 30 November 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-430/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/39)
Action brought on 30 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                            Belgium                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                       (Case C-429/98)                               Communities on 30 November 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities, represented by Pieter Jan
                        (1999/C 20/38)                               Kuijper, Legal Adviser, and Nicola Yerrell, a national civil
                                                                     servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                 Kirchberg.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 30 November 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service          that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     (a) declare that, by failing to adopt and/or to
                                                                          communicate to the Commission the laws,
                                                                          regulations and administrative measures necessary in
The Commission of the European Communities claims                         order to comply with Council Directive 94/45/EC of
that the Court should:                                                    22 September 1994 on the establishment of a
                                                                          European Works Council or a procedure in
                                                                          Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale
                                                                          groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                          and consulting employees (1), alternatively by failing
      and administrative measures necessary in order to
                                                                          to ensure the introduction by the social partners of
      comply with Council Directive 94/56/EC of
                                                                          the necessary measures by voluntary agreement, and
      21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental
                                                                          thus by failing to adopt and/or to communicate to
      principles governing the investigation of civil aviation
                                                                          the Commission the measures necessary in order to
      accidents and incidents (1), alternatively by failing to
                                                                          guarantee the results to be achieved under that
      communicate the measures taken in order to comply
                                                                          directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
      therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                          to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                     (b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        costs.


C 55/20                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/01 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case C-260/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/46)                                                          (2003/C 55/49)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of              By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/01 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-260/01: European Parliament v
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Finanziaria Immobiliare            Council of the European Union.
Perugino SpA v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-310/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-90/01 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/50)
                         (2003/C 55/47)
                                                                        By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-310/01 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-90/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): Comune di Udine, AMGA —
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): San Marco SpA and Others
                                                                        Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. v Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l, A.G.E.S.I. —
v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-231/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-346/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/48)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/51)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-231/01 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): El. Da Srl v Ministero delle       from the register of Case C-346/01: Commission of the
Finanze.                                                                European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.