title: Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-395/98)

text:
C 397/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.12.98
      5. In the light of Community law, may such a system             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
          be applied in a fair way to products from the
          domestic market and to imported products?
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(b) Does depreciation of the real value of used vehicles,
      referred to in the judgment of the European Court of
      Justice in Case C-345/95 (1) Nunes Tadeu necessarily            The pleas in law and principal arguments advanced are
      imply that a valuation or expert assessment must be             analogous to those in Case C-394/98.
      carried out on every vehicle or may the calculation be
      made in general and abstract terms by reference to a            (1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 28.
      legal criterion?
(c) If      the     European       Commission       discontinues
      infringement proceedings against a Member State on
      the understanding that the new national legislation is
      now in conformity with Community law, may a
      national supreme court, relying on the interpretation           Action brought on 6 November 1998 by the Commission
      of Community law and of national law adopted by                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic
      the Commission, be relieved of the obligation imposed                                       Republic
      on it by Article 177 of the EC Treaty to request a
                                                                                (Case C-398/98)
      preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the
      European Communities and decide the case in                                             (98/C 397/46)
      accordance with the interpretation adopted by the
      European Commission?
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
(1) [1995] ECR I-479.
                                                                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                      on 6 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafillou, of its
                                                                      Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a civil servant
                                                                      on secondment to the same service, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de
                                                                      la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Belgium
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should declare
                          (Case C-395/98)                             that, by laying down and retaining a system for stocks of
                                                                      petroleum products which directly links the possibility of
                           (98/C 397/45)
                                                                      transferring to the refineries operating in the country the
                                                                      obligation to stock supplies with an obligation to obtain
                                                                      supplies of petroleum products from those refineries, and
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                  by precluding service stations from obtaining supplies
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities               from refineries or from another Member State, the
on 5 November 1998 by the Commission of the European                  Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Communities, represented by R. B. Wainwright, Principal               Article 30 of the EC Treaty.
Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil
servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                      In the Commission's view, the Greek system for
The Commission of the European Communities claims                     maintaining emergency stocks is contrary to Article 30 of
that the Court should:                                                the EC Treaty to the extent that the effect of the
                                                                      obligations imposed on the petroleum product companies
                                                                      is to confer an advantage on the products of Greek
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by              refineries because the distribution companies are in reality
     failing to communicate to the Commission the laws,               obliged to obtain supplies exclusively from those
     regulations and administrative measures necessary in             refineries. The negative effects of that situation on the free
     order to comply with Commission Directive 95/13/EC               movement of petroleum products within the Community
     of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive 92/                are, additionally, intensified by the way in which the
     75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household              distribution of petroleum products is organised in Greece,
     electric tumble driers (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has           whereby service-station operators are required to obtain
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;           supplies exclusively from the distribution companies.


title: Case T-16/12: Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/15

         Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission
   (Case T-16/12)
   2012/C 109/35
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands), Vereniging It Fryske Gea (Olterterp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Drentse Landschap (Assen, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Overijssel (Dalfsen, Netherlands); Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap (Arnhem, Netherlands); Stichting Flevo-Landschap (Lelystad, Netherlands); Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap (De Bilt, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland (Heiloo, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap (Rotterdam, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap (Wilhelminadorp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap (Haaren, Netherlands); Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (Lomm, Netherlands); and Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (’s-Graveland, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, alternatively, annul that decision in so far as the applicants are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law, which are similar to those put forward in Case T-15/12 Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission.


title: Case C-398/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Right of residence of nationals of Members States of the European Union and of the European Economic Area who are non-active and pensioned persons — National legislation and administrative practice requiring personal resources sufficient for a stay of at least a year in the host Member State)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-398/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Right of residence of nationals of Members States of the European Union and of the European Economic Area who are non-active and pensioned persons - National legislation and administrative practice requiring personal resources sufficient for a stay of at least a year in the host Member State)
   (2008/C 128/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

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

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. O'Neill, Agent, and J. Stratford, Barrister)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the Community rules on the residence of citizens of the Union — National legislation and administrative practice which require that, in order to obtain a residence permit, non-active and pensioned persons must have adequate personal resources
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force national provisions under which, in order to obtain a residence permit, nationals of the European Union and of the European Economic Area who are non-active and retired must prove that they have sustainable resources, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families, Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence and Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
23 . 10 . 96       EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 312 / 5
                                                            III
                                                          (Notices)
                                  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                                            NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                       (96/C 312/07 )
             The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the
             European Parliament are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities
             No C 312 A of 23 October 1996 the following open competition :
             Swedish edition
             EUR/LA/ 107 — Conference interpreters
             To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
             the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
             The final date for receipt of applications is 26 November 1996.


title: Case T-154/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa Zenato)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/25

         Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa Zenato)
   (Case T-154/11)
   2011/C 139/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action, together with the related annexes, admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal (points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part) in so far as it upholds the appeal, upholds the opposition and rejects in its entirety the application for registration, and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the opposing party in the opposition and appeal proceedings;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘RIPASSA ZENATO’ (registration application No 5 877 865), for goods in Class 33

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian word mark “RIPASSO” (No 682 213), for goods in Class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: To uphold the opposition and to reject in its entirety the application for registration

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09.


title: Case T-254/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden v OHIM (RadioCom)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/28

         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden v OHIM (RadioCom)
   (Case T-254/06)
   (2006/C 261/54)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden GmbH & Co. KG (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by W.W. Göpfert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 7 July 2006, which was notified to the applicant on 17 July 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RadioCom’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 — application no. 3 986 023.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The mark for which registration is sought is capable of being registered and the grounds for refusal in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) which the defendant put forward do not preclude registration.

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


title: Case T-477/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg e.a. v ECHA

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/40

         Action brought on 20 August 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg e.a. v ECHA
   (Case T-477/15)
   (2015/C 363/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure ECHA/2014/86 communicated to the applicants in its letter of 25 June 2014, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another consortium;

               —

               order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, for the amount of 5 20  000 euros; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that ECHA infringed the obligation to state reasons within the evaluation of their tender by not providing the relative advantages of the winning tender.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer and subsidiarily that it introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.


title: Case F-107/07: Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Daskalakis v Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/46

         Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Daskalakis v Commission
   (Case F-107/07)
   (2007/C 315/89)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Constantin Daskalakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 28 June 2007 to the extent that it does not award the management premium provided for in Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations for a period longer than one year;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official called upon to occupy temporarily a post of Head of Unit, appeals the decision by which the Commission, when calculating his salary, refused to take into account the premium that he was granted as Head of Unit ad interim, on the ground that, according to Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, this premium could be allowed only for one year, even if the Applicant was still acting as Head of Unit after that period had expired.
   The Applicant claims that the time-limit provided for in the abovementioned provision refers only to the duration of the temporary posting and does not affect the remuneration corresponding to it, if the temporary posting is prolonged beyond the duration of one year. According to the Applicant, if the Administration is not able to fill the vacancy in one year, it cannot invoke its own failure against the officer occupying the post ad interim for a longer period.
   The applicant alleges, in addition, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of the officials and of the principle of good administration. The Commission should have taken into consideration not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned.
   In a subsidiary manner, the Applicant stresses that he was nominated Head of Unit ad interim because the compulsory mobility plan obliged the holder of the post in question to switch to another post. For this reason, he alleges that its case should be covered by the last part of Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, according to which the duration of a temporary posting can exceed one year, where, directly or indirectly, the posting is to replace an official who is seconded to another post in the interests of the service.


title: Case T-390/10 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2010 by Paulette Füller-Tomlinson against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/08, Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/47

         Appeal brought on 10 September 2010 by Paulette Füller-Tomlinson against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/08, Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament
   (Case T-390/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 301/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Paulette Füller-Tomlinson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/07;

               —

               Consequently, grant the applicant the form of order sought at first instance and therefore

                           —

                           annul the decision of 9 April 2008 of the Head of the Pensions and Social Insurance Unit, setting, in Article 3, the proportion of partial permanent invalidity attributable to occupational disease at 20 %;

                           —

                           so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

                           —

                           alternatively, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 12 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present appeal, the applicant is seeking to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/08, Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament which dismissed the action in which the applicant had sought annulment of the decision of the European Parliament setting, in regard to the applicant, the proportion of partial permanent invalidity attributable to occupational disease at 20 % pursuant to the European Guide for Assessment, for medical purposes, of Physical and Mental Impairments.
   In support of her appeal, the applicant puts forward several pleas in law alleging:

               —

               an infringement of the scope of the Tribunal's powers of judicial review of the lawfulness of the conditions laid down by the cover regulation adopted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as the Tribunal limited its review to manifest errors of assessment and to the exceeding by the institutions of their powers of assessment, whereas the review should be complete, covering the lawfulness of the substance of the measure;

               —

               an infringement of the review of manifest error of assessment, distortion of the file, infringement of the Tribunal's obligation to give reasons at first instance and an infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the cover regulation:

                           —

                           inasmuch as the Tribunal did not take account of the statements made at the hearing in furtherance of the complaints made in the initiating application;

                           —

                           inasmuch as the Tribunal considered, in particular, that the doctor's freedom of assessment concerned only the pathological finding and not the fixing of the proportion of invalidity, thereby validating the binding character of the European Guide for Assessment of Physical and Mental Impairments, which limits the proportion of invalidity to 20 % in the present case, although the medical committee considered the applicant's proportion of invalidity to be 100 %;

               —

               an infringement of the concept of a reasonable period of time and distortion of the file, inasmuch as the Tribunal refers, in its statement of the facts, to a medical examination which never took place and then concludes that the period of time within which the applicant's file was dealt with was not unreasonable.


C 122/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 29.4.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-322/99 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/66)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/67)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 February 2000 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 By order of 22 February 2000 the President of the Fifth
Case T-322/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the European                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                             Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-341/99: Francisco Javier Ramon Galar v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-630/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Anstar Oy

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Anstar Oy
   (Case C-630/16)
   (2017/C 063/24)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anstar Oy

      Other party: Turvallisuus- ja kemikaalivirasto (Tukes)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are mandate M/120 and harmonised standard EN 1090-1 (:2009+A1:2011) drawn up on the basis of that mandate to be interpreted as meaning that the products to be fixed into concrete before it sets (suspension system products used for fixing shell elements and brickwork supports to the building frame, and certain foundation bolts, fastening plates and standard steel parts, bracing systems, column shoes and wall shoes, and balcony connections) listed in points 1 to 4 of the decision of Tukes do not fall within their scope?

               2.

               Do the Construction Products Regulation, (1) the Commission mandates mentioned in the present case, or EU law otherwise preclude Tukes’s interpretation that the aforesaid products are outside the scope of mandate M/120 and standard EN 1090-1?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 5).


title: Case C-119/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2010 — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2010 — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH
   (Case C-119/10)
   2010/C 134/35
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV

      Defendant: Red Bull GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is the mere ‘filling’ of packaging which bears a sign (as referred to in paragraph 3.1 (iv) above) to be regarded as using that sign in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 5 of the Trade Mark Directive, (1) even if that filling takes place as a service provided to and on the instructions of another person, for the purposes of distinguishing that person’s goods?

                           (b)

                           Does it make any difference to the answer to question 1.a if there is an infringement for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) or (b)?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1.a is in the affirmative, can using the sign then also be prohibited in the Benelux on the basis of Article 5 of the Trade Mark Directive if the goods bearing the sign are destined exclusively for export to countries outside (a) the Benelux area or (b) the European Union, and they cannot — except in the undertaking where the filling took place — be seen therein by the public?

               3.

               If the answer to question II (a or b) is in the affirmative, what criterion must be used when answering the question whether there has been trade-mark infringement: should the criterion be the perception of an average consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect in the Benelux or alternatively in the European Union — who then in the given circumstances can only be determined in a fictional or abstract way — or must a different criterion be used in this case, for example, the perception of the consumer in the country to which the goods are exported?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 20 June 1995 by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-133/95)

text:
No C 229/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 9 . 95
The applicant maintains that the defendant has committed              On 23 November 1994 , the applicant, pursuant to Article
several manifest errors of assessment of the law and of his           175 , called on the Commission to act by adopting a
personal situation, by regarding him as not entitled to               definitive position on the complaint in so far as concerned
regrading in a different career bracket despite having                Article 85 .
allowed another official to change to a different career
bracket. Moreover, he considers that insufficient reasons
were given for the contested decision, in particular as               On 15 February 1995 , not having received any decision
regards the reasons for the non-application of the principles         from the Commission, the applicant, pursuant to Article
laid down by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           175 , lodged with the Court of First Instance an application
29 September 1993 . Lastly, the applicant states that, by             against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ).
reason of the administrative practice followed by the                 On 17 February 1995 the Commission adopted Decision
defendant in relation to him, it has prejudiced his interests,        SG/95 ) D/1790, rejecting the complaint as regards Article 85
particularly as regards the development of his career and of          of the EC Treaty . The applicant challenged that decision by
his pension rights .                                                  application lodged with the Court of First Instance pursuant
                                                                      to Article 173 ( Case T-l 10/95 ). Finally, on 6 April 1995 , the
                                                                      Commission adopted Decision SG(95 ) D/4438 , rejecting the
                                                                      second part of the aforementioned complaint of abuse of a
                                                                      dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 by the
                                                                      interception of mail on the basis of Article 25 of the UPU
                                                                      Convention . The latter is the decision contested in the
Action brought on 20 June 1995 by International Express
Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the Commission of the             present case .
                     European Communities
                          Case T-133 /95 )                            The applicant submits that the contested decision should be
                           ( 95/C 229/49 )                            annulled for the following reasons :
                 (Language of the case: English)                      — Breach of Article 190 of the Treaty in that the
                                                                          Commission fails to state reasons in its decision
An action against the Commission of the European                          regarding the interception of 'ABC remail' and the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         application of Article 85 to the market allocation scheme
Instance of the European Communities on 20 June 1995 by                   implemented on the basis of Article 25 of the UPU
International Express Carriers Conference ( IECC ),                       Convention .
represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                 — Breach of Article 3(2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 in so far as
L-1650 .                                                                  the Commission incorrectly considered that the
                                                                          applicant's members had no legitimate interest as
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               regards 'non-physical' remail .
— annul Commission Decision No SG(95)D/4438 of
                                                                      — Breach of EC competition rules in that the Commission
       6 April 1995 ( Case No IV/32.791 — Remail ),
                                                                           failed to condemn ( i ) the interception and the agreement
— order such further or other relief as the Court considers               to intercept commercial 'physical ABA remail' by the
                                                                           post offices, ( ii) the post offices' efforts to restrict
       appropriate in order for the Commission to comply with
       Article 176 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                           development of 'ABC remail' by relying on the authority
                                                                           or purported authority of Article 25 of the UPU
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .                                 Convention, and ( iii ) the post offices' use of the UPU
                                                                           Convention to restrict 'non-physical remail'.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — Misuse of powers in that the Commission's main
 The applicant, a professional organization composed of                    purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to achieve
 certain important private express companies, filed with the               political objectives .
 Commission, on 13 July 1988 , a complaint under Article 3
 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 concerning the infringement ( i )
 of Article 85 (1 ) of the EC Treaty by certain European public        — Breach of certain principles of Community law in
 postal operators, and ( ii ) of Article 86 of the EC Treaty by            that, in adopting the decision, the Commission
 two post offices which relied upon a market allocation                    violated the principles of legal certainty and of the
 scheme set out in the Universal Postal Convention ( UPU                   protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
 Convention ). The behaviour in question of the post offices               non-discrimination and the principle of sound
 named in the complaint was directed towards suppressing                   administration .
 or restraining 'remail' competition, a practice whereby a
 mailer prepares international mail in one country but posts
 the mail not with the post office of that country but with a
 post office located in another country .


title: Case C-524/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-524/13)
   2013/C 367/45
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eycke Braun

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Question referred

   Is Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, (1) as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees received by a notary employed as a civil servant for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company constitute taxes for the purposes of that Directive, even if the conversion does not lead to an increase in the capital of the acquiring or transforming company?

      (1)  OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.

      (2)  Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23).


title: Case C-430/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by order of that court of  31 August 2005  in Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou & Parokhis Ipirision Mikhanografisis (Dionik A.E.) and Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas v Epitropi Kefalaiagoras

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by order of that court of 31 August 2005 in Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou & Parokhis Ipirision Mikhanografisis (Dionik A.E.) and Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas v Epitropi Kefalaiagoras
   (Case C-430/05)
   (2006/C 60/33)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State, Greece) of 31 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 2 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou & Parokhis Ipirision Mikhanografisis (Dionik A.E.) and Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas and the Epitropi Kefalaiagoras (Capital Market Commission) on the following question:
   In the light of Article 21 of Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities (OJ 2001 L 184, p. 1), can a national legislature lay down, for cases where the information recorded in listing particulars proves to be inaccurate or misleading, administrative penalties imposable not only upon the persons expressly mentioned in those particulars as responsible but also upon the issuer of the securities being admitted to listing on a stock exchange and, indiscriminately, upon the members of its board of directors, regardless of whether the board members have been identified as responsible in the abovementioned sense?


title: Case T-289/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 May 2007 — Duales System Deutschland v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Collection and recovery system for packaging marketed in Germany bearing the Der Grüne Punkt logo — Decision granting exemption — Obligations imposed by the Commission to ensure competition — Exclusivity granted by the system operator to the collection undertakings used — Restriction of competition — Need to guarantee the access of competitors to the collection facilities used by the system operator — Commitments given by the system operator)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 May 2007 — Duales System Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-289/01) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Collection and recovery system for packaging marketed in Germany bearing the Der Grüne Punkt logo - Decision granting exemption - Obligations imposed by the Commission to ensure competition - Exclusivity granted by the system operator to the collection undertakings used - Restriction of competition - Need to guarantee the access of competitors to the collection facilities used by the system operator - Commitments given by the system operator)
   (2007/C 155/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH, formerly Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaerts, B. Meyring, E. Wagner, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by S. Rating, subsequently by P. Oliver, H. Gading and M. Schneider, and finally by W. Mölls and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme (Mayence, Germany) (represented by: A. Rinne and A. Walz, lawyers)
   Re:
   Annulment of Article 3 of Commission Decision 2001/837/EC of 17 September 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Cases COMP/34493 — DSD, COMP/37366 — Hofman + DSD, COMP/37299 — Edelhoff + DSD, COMP/37291 — Rechmann + DSD, COMP/37288 — ARGE and five other undertakings + DSD, COMP/37287 — AWG and five other undertakings + DSD, COMP/37526 — Feldhaus + DSD, COMP/37254 — Nehlsen + DSD, COMP/37252 — Schönmakers + DSD, COMP/37250 — Altvater + DSD, COMP/37246 — DASS + DSD, COMP/37245 — Scheele + DSD, COMP/37244 — SAK + DSD, COMP/37243 — Fischer + DSD, COMP/37242 — Trienekens + DSD, COMP/37267 — Interseroh + DSD) (OJ 2001 L 319, p. 1), or, in the alternative, annulment of that decision in its entirety and of the applicant's commitment reproduced in recital 72 of that decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant, Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH, to bear three quarters of its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the costs incurred by Landbell AG Rückhol-Systeme;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear a quarter of its own costs and a quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.


title: Case T-323/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou (CHABOU) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CHABOU — Earlier national and international word marks Chalou — Refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou (CHABOU)
   (Case T-323/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CHABOU - Earlier national and international word marks Chalou - Refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 6/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Chickmouza Chabou (Rheine, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Triebold, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Chalou GmbH (Herschweiler-Pettersheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Träger, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1165/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Chalou GmbH and Chickmouza Chabou

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Mr Chickmouza Chabou to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-488/15: Action brought on 14 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/20

         Action brought on 14 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-488/15)
   (2015/C 389/22)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Kružíková, E. Manhaeve and S. Petrovа, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               by exceeding both the annual and daily limit values for PM10 systematically and from 2007 until at least 2013 inclusive in the following zones and agglomerations: BG0001 agglomeration Sofia; BG0002 agglomeration Plovdiv; BG0004 North Bulgaria; BG0005 South-West Bulgaria and BG0006 South-East Bulgaria;

               —

               by exceeding the daily limit values for PM10 systematically and from 2007 until at least 2013 inclusive and the annual limit values for PM10 of 2007, 2008 and 2010 in zone BG0003 Varna;

               —

               and in the absence of more detailed information to the effect for instance that the situation of exceeding the daily and annual limit values for PM10 in the abovementioned zones and agglomerations has changed, declare that Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) read in conjunction with Annex XI of the directive; (1)

               —

               in view of the fact that, excluding the latest annual report on air quality for 2013, both the annual and daily limit values for PM10 in all of the abovementioned zones and agglomerations continue to be exceeded, also declare that Bulgaria has not complied with its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the directive and in particular its obligation to keep the exceedance period as short as possible, and declare that it continues not to fulfil its obligations;

               —

               order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On the basis of the latest annual report on air quality and also of the responses of the Bulgarian authorities to the reasoned opinion, the Commission takes the view that, at present, the Republic of Bulgaria has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 13(1) concerning compliance with the annual and daily limit values for the presence of micro-dust particles in the air (PM10) and under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the directive with regard to the obligation to draw up air quality plans in order to keep the exceedance period as short as possible.
   The Commission considers it necessary for the Court of Justice of the European Union to declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has infringed those provisions of the directive.

      (1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).


title: Case T-446/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Dow AgroSciences and Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/43

         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Dow AgroSciences and Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos v Commission
   (Case T-446/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/88
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) and Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul Decision 2010/355/EU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings,

               —

               take such other or further measures as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application the applicants seek the annulment of the Commission Decision 2010/355/EU of 25 June 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1).
   The applicants put forward two pleas in law in support of their claims.
   First, they argue that the contested decision is unlawful since it is based on, and exists only because, of an unlawful decision. That other decision (2), 2007/629/EC (3), is the original non-inclusion decision for trifluralin which resulted from the Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 (4) review of the substance. Had decision 2007/629/EC not been adopted unlawfully, the contested decision would not exist.
   Second, the applicants submit that the contested act is itself unlawful for self-standing reasons. They contend that the Commission has erred as a matter of law in justifying the contested act on the grounds of the alleged concerns regarding:

               —

               potential long-range transport; in this regard, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to take into account data (lack of scientific justification) and violated the principle of sound administration and right of defence. Moreover, the approach adopted by the Commission with regard to long-range transport is, in the applicants’ view, discriminatory and disproportionate;

               —

               fish toxicity; in this regard, the applicants claim that the scientific justification does not support the finding. Moreover, in their opinion, the contested act is disproportionate in the way it approaches the alleged chronic toxic concern.

      (1)  Notified under document C(2010) 4199, OJ 2010 L 160, p. 30

      (2)  Contested by the applicants in the framework of Case T-475/07, Dow Agrociences and Others v Commission, OJ 2008 C 51, p. 54

      (3)  Commission Decision of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2007) 4282), OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42

      (4)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1


title: Case T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2010 — France v Commission (State aid — Financial measures in favour of France Télécom — Draft shareholder’s advance — Public declarations by a member of the French Government — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Meaning of State Aid — Advantage — State resources — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2010 — France v Commission
   (Case T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04) (1)

   (State aid - Financial measures in favour of France Télécom - Draft shareholder’s advance - Public declarations by a member of the French Government - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Meaning of State Aid - Advantage - State resources - Duty to state reasons)
   2010/C 179/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: (in Case T-425/04) French Republic (represented by: initially, G. de Bergues, R. Abraham and S. Ramet, subsequently, E. Belliard, M. de Bergues and S. Ramet and lastly, E. Belliard, M. de Bergues, A.-L. Vendrolini and J.-C. Niollet, Agents); (in Case T-444/04) France Télécom SA (Paris, France) (represented by: initially, A. Gosset-Grainville and S. Hautbourg, subsequently, S. Hautbourg, lawyers); (in Case T-450/04) Bouygues SA (Paris); Bouygues Télécom SA (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J. Vogel, F. Sureau, D. Théophile and J. Blouet Gaillard, lawyers); and (in Case T-456/04) Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de telecommunications (AFORS Télécom) (Paris) (represented by O. Fréget, F. Herrenschmidt, M. Struys and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and J. Buendía Sierra and subsequently C. Giolito and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: (in Cases T-450/04 and T-456/04) French Republic (represented by: (in Case T-450/04) E. Belliard, M. de Bergues, A.-L. Vendrolini and J.-C Niollet, and (in Case T-456/04) M. de Bergues, Agents); (in Case T-444/04) Bouygues SA (Paris); Bouygues Télécom SA (Boulogne-Billancourt) (represented by: J. Vogel, F. Sureau, D. Théophile and J. Blouet Gaillard, lawyers); and (in Cases T-450/04 and T-456/04) France Télécom SA (Paris) (represented by: initially, A. Gosset-Grainville and S. Hautbourg, subsequently, by S. Hautbourg, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom (OJ 2006 L 257, p. 11).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom;

               2.

               Declares that it is no longer necessary to adjudicate on the claims for annulment of Article 2 of Decision 2006/621;

               3.

               In Cases T-425/04 and T-444/04, orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the French Republic and by France Télécom SA;

               4.

               In Cases T-425/04 and T-444/04, orders Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA to bear their own costs;

               5.

               In Cases T-450/04, orders Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               6.

               In Case T-450/04, orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs;

               7.

               In Case T-456/04, orders the Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom) and the Commission to bear their own costs;

               8.

               In Cases T-450/04 and T-456/04, orders French Republic and France Télécom to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.


title: Case C-330/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 July 2015 by Johannes Tomana and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 22 April 2015 in Case T-190/12: Johannes Tomana and others v Council of the European Union, European Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/20

         Appeal brought on 3 July 2015 by Johannes Tomana and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 22 April 2015 in Case T-190/12: Johannes Tomana and others v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-330/15 P)
   (2015/C 302/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Johannes Tomana and others (represented by: M. O'Kane, Solicitor, M. Lester, Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The Appellants ask the Court for an order setting aside the judgment of the General Court, an order annulling the Contested Measures in so far as they apply to the Appellants, and an order that the Respondents should pay the Appellants’ costs at first instance and of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First plea: The Court erred in holding that the Contested Regulation had a valid legal basis. Its only stated legal basis empowered the Commission to amend Regulation 314/2004 (1) on the basis of a Common Position that had since been repealed, and which could not be interpreted as referring instead to a subsequent decision.
   Second plea: The Court erred in considering that people could be listed in the Contested Measures on the basis that they are ‘members of the Government’ or their ‘associates’ solely by virtue of their occupations or former occupations. Moreover, the Court erred in considering that people should be deemed to be ‘associates’ of members of the Government on the basis that allegations that they had engaged in conduct said to undermine the rule of law, democracy or human rights in Zimbabwe in the past showed that they had ‘colluded’ with the Government. The Court should not have permitted the Respondents to have relied on presumptions that were not provided for in the Contested Measures and were inconsistent with and disproportionate to their objectives, but should have required them to have discharged their burden of justifying re-listings with a sufficiently solid factual basis.
   Third plea: The Court erred in concluding that the statement of reasons was sufficient where it simply listed the occupations said to have been held by members of the Government and their associates, or where it set out vague and unparticularised allegations of past misconduct. The Court also erred in having permitted the reasons to have been supplemented with additional ex post facto reasons stated nowhere in the Contested Measures. When a number of the Appellants submitted observations refuting the allegations against them, the Court incorrectly and unfairly held their evidence to be inadmissible and did not consider it.
   Fourth plea: The Court departed from the settled case law on rights of defence by holding that the Respondents were not required to communicate evidence or the basis for maintaining a listing, or give an opportunity for the Appellants to make observations, prior to their decisions to re-list each of the Appellants.
   Fifth plea: The Court failed to assess whether listing each of the Appellants struck a proportionate balance between the serious infringement of their fundamental rights and the objectives of the Contested Measures.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe.

      OJ L 55, p. 1


title: Case C-69/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello di Venezia — Sezione IV Civile by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
C 83/14                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           5.4.2003
Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 14 February
                                                                           2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against
                                                                                D. Lipjes
                           (Case C-67/03)
                                                                                (Case C-68/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/25)
                          (2003/C 83/24)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                           Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 14 February
                                                                           2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2003, for
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecretaris van Finan-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
                                                                           ciën against D. Lipjes on the following questions:
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.
                                                                           1.     Must Article 28b(E)(3) of the Sixth Directive (1) be
                                                                                construed as meaning that that provision refers only to
                                                                                services by intermediaries where the recipient of the
                                                                                service is a taxable person within the meaning of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       directive or a non-taxable legal person within the meaning
                                                                                of Article 28a of the Directive?
—     declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                  2.     If not, must the first sentence of Article 28b(E)(3) of the
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                      Sixth Directive then be construed as meaning that where
      Commission Directive 2000/39/EC (1) of 8 June 2000                          an intermediary acts on the purchase and sale of a
      establishing a first list of indicative occupational exposure               tangible object between two individuals, for the purposes
      limit values in implementation of Council Directive 98/                     of determining the place where the intermediary acts,
      24/EC ( 2) on the protection of the health and safety of                    regard must be had to the place where the transaction is
      workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work,                  carried out, as if the transaction were a supply or service
      or by not notifying the Commission of those provisions,                     by a taxable person as referred to in Article 8 of the Sixth
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                   Directive?
      under Article 3(1) of that directive.
                                                                           (1 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                                basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
                                                                           di Venezia — Sezione IV Civile by order of that Court of
Article 249 EC, which provides that directives are binding on              6 November 2002 in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di
the Member States as to the result to be achieved, requires the             Cornedo Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze
Member States to respect the time-limits for transposition
stipulated in the directives. This time-limit expired on                                              (Case C-69/03)
31 December 2001 without the Italian Republic having
adopted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                                                                                (2003/C 83/26)
referred to in the Commission’s claims.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 142 of 16.06.2000, p. 47.                                        European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
( 2) OJ L 131 of 5.05.1998, p. 11.                                         Venezia — Sezione IV Civile (Court of Appeal of Venice,
                                                                           Fourth Civil Chamber) of 6 November 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 17 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. Coop.
                                                                           a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 5.4.2003                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 83/15
Do Regulations (EEC) No 1079/77 (1) and No 1822/77 (2),                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
which establish a co-responsibility levy on cows’ milk, apply              Tributaria Provinciale — di Massa Carrara, Sezione 2, by
to all transfers of cows’ milk from the producer to third parties,         order of that Court of 11 December 2002 in the case of
regardless of the legal form which such transfers take, or                      Carbonati Apuani s.r.l. against Comune di Carrara
merely to transfers which result in the acquisition of title in
the product by the transferee?                                                                      (Case C-72/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/28)
( 1) OJ L 131 of 26.5.1977, p. 6.
( 2) OJ L 203 of 9.8.1977, p. 1.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
                                                                           ria Provinciale — di Massa Carrara, Sezione 2 (Massa Carrara
                                                                           Provincial Tax Court, Second Chamber) of 11 December 2002,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2003, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Carbonati Apuani s.r.l. against
                                                                           Comune di Carrara on the following question:
Action brought on 18 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                           whether the Italian rules in question, Laws No 749 of 15 July
                                Belgium
                                                                           1911 and No 449 of 23 December 1997 and Decree-Law
                                                                           No 8 of 26 January 1999 as converted, with amendments,
                            (Case C-71/03)                                 into Law No 75.99 — establishing a marble tax in the Comune
                                                                           di Carrara — are compatible with Articles 23, 81, 85 and 86
                                                                           of the EC Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam,
                            (2003/C 83/27)                                 ratified in Italy by Law No 209.1998.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
18 February 2003 by the Commission of the European                         Action brought on 20 February 2003 by the Commission
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, acting as Agent,                  of the European Communities against the Republic of
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                                             Austria
                                                                                (Case C-76/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 83/29)
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection               An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
      of designs and, in any event, by failing to communicate              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has                   20 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;               Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                       Guerrero, also of the European Commission’s Legal Service,
                                                                           Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
The period prescribed for implementation of the directive                        comply with Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parlia-
expired on 28 October 2001.                                                      ment and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal
                                                                                protection of designs ( 1) and/or by failing to forward
                                                                                those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of
( 1) OJ L 289 of 28.10.1998, p. 28.                                              Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive;
                                                                           2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.


title: Case C-531/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Giorgio Giorgis against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-474/12: Giorgio Giorgis v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/12

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Giorgio Giorgis against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-474/12: Giorgio Giorgis v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-531/14 P)
   (2015/C 389/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Giorgio Giorgis (represented by: I.M. Prado, A. Tornato, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Comigel SAS
   By order of 2 September 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Giorgio Giorgis to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-321/01 P: Appeal brought on 21 August 2001 (fax: 20.8.2001) by AGRANA Zucker und Stärke Aktiengesellschaft against the judgment delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-187/99 between AGRANA Zucker und Stärke Aktiengesellschaft and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 303/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.10.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht                 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
Lübeck by order of that court of 6 August 2001 in the                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
case of Wiebke Busch against Klinikum Neustadt GmbH                      21 August 2001 (fax: 20.8.2001) by AGRANA Zucker und
                       & Co Betriebs-KG                                  Stärke Aktiengesellschaft, represented by Walter Barfuß and
                                                                         Hanno Wollmann, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Schönherr Barfuß
                                                                         Torggler & Partner, of Tuchlauben 13, A-1014 Vienna, with
                         (Case C-320/01)
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, L-2010
                         (2001/C 303/16)                                 Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
Court) of 6 August 2001 which was received at the Court
                                                                         (1) set aside the whole of the contested judgment (1) and
Registry on 20 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Wiebke Busch against Klinikum Neustadt GmbH & Co.                       annul Commission Decision 1999/342/EC of 30 Septem-
                                                                                ber 1998 concerning aid which Austria plans to grant
Betriebs-KG on the following questions:
                                                                                to Agrana Stärke GmbH to build and convert starch
                                                                                production facilities (OJ 1999 L 131, p. 61), and, if
1.    Does it constitute illegal discrimination on grounds of                   appropriate, refer the case, after setting aside the contested
      sex, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Council                        judgment, back to the Court of First Instance;
      Directive 76/207/EEC (1), if a woman who, after she has
      started her parenting leave (Erziehungsurlaub) whishes to
      shorten that leave with the consent of her employer, is            (2) order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
      under an obligation to inform the employer if she knows                   before the Court of First Instance and of the appeal
      she is pregnant again before the agreement to shorten her                 proceedings.
      leave is concluded, where she cannot fully assume
      the proposed work because from the very first day a
      prohibition of employment applies in respect of particular
      tasks?                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
                                                                         The Court of First Instance failed in the contested judgment
      In the case described, does it constitute unlawful discrimi-
                                                                         to state which obligations are imposed on the European
      nation on the grounds of sex, within the meaning of the
                                                                         Commission by Declaration No 31 set out in the Final Act of
      said Directive, if the employer then has the right to
                                                                         the 1995 Act of Accession (Joint Declaration on the processing
      rescind his consent to the shortening of parenting leave
                                                                         industry in Austria and Finland). It is apparent simply from an
      because he was mistaken about the fact that the woman
                                                                         interpretation of the literal wording of Declaration No 31 that
      was pregnant?
                                                                         the respondent in the present case was obliged to apply
                                                                         Article 87(3)(c) EC not (as usual) in a narrow way but broadly
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
                                                                         (‘flexibly’). The respondent and the Court of First Instance
                                                                         failed to meet that requirement, inasmuch as they attributed to
                                                                         an aid measure recognised as being only small-scale an effect
                                                                         prejudicial to the Community. Had a flexible interpretation
                                                                         been applied to the rules of the Treaty relating to aid, the
                                                                         measure should have been approved.
Appeal brought on 21 August 2001 (fax: 20.8.2001) by                     In addition, the respondent and the Court of First Instance
AGRANA Zucker und Stärke Aktiengesellschaft against                      wrongly applied Declaration No 31, inasmuch as they declined
the judgment delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Fifth                       to include in their calculations, first, the advantage accruing to
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First                     the Community from the non-transitional accession of Austria
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-187/99                    and, second, the interest of Austria in the restructuring of
between AGRANA Zucker und Stärke Aktiengesellschaft                      its processing industry. It is apparent from a teleological
    and the Commission of the European Communities                       interpretation, of Declaration No 31 that the Commission is
                                                                         obliged, when assessing individual aid projects assisting the
                                                                         absorption of the Austrian processing industry into the internal
                        (Case C-321/01 P)                                market, to take those factors into account. By declaring that
                                                                         there was no obligation to weigh up the various interests
                         (2001/C 303/17)                                 involved, the Court of First Instance (like the Commission
                                                                         before it) has infringed Community law.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 June 2001 by
                                                                         (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999, p. 10.
the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-187/99
between AGRANA Zucker und Stärke Aktiengesellschaft and


title: Case C-526/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Tadej Kotnik and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Validity and interpretation of the Banking Communication from the Commission — Interpretation of Directives 2001/24/EC and 2012/30/EU — State aid to banks in the context of the financial crisis — Burden-sharing — Writing off equity capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Right to property — Protection of the interests of shareholders and others — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Tadej Kotnik and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije
   (Case C-526/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity and interpretation of the Banking Communication from the Commission - Interpretation of Directives 2001/24/EC and 2012/30/EU - State aid to banks in the context of the financial crisis - Burden-sharing - Writing off equity capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Right to property - Protection of the interests of shareholders and others - Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions))
   (2016/C 343/04)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tadej Kotnik, Marko Studen, Anton Glavan, Jože Sedonja, Primož Kozmus, Savaprojekt d.d., Fondazione cassa di risparmio di Imola, Andrej Pipuš, Dušanka Pipuš, Marija Pipuš, Tomaž Štrukelj, Luka Jukič, Angel Jaromil, Franc Marušič, Mladen Mladenić, Matjaž Matičič, Stajka Skrbinšek, Janez Forte, Zdenko Fritz, Sergej Garantini, Marijana Gošte, Marta Leskovar, Marija Šumi, Državni svet Republike Slovenije, Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije, Igor Karlovšek, Marija Karlovšek, Janez Gosar

      Defendant: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

      Interveners: Vlada Republike Slovenije, Banka Slovenije, Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 August 2013, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘Banking Communication’) must be interpreted as meaning that it is not binding on the Member States.

               2.

               Articles 107 to 109 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid.

               3.

               The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to property must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid.

               4.

               Articles 29, 34, 35 and 40 to 42 of Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid.

               5.

               The Banking Communication must be interpreted as meaning that the measures for converting hybrid capital and subordinate debt or writing down their principal, as provided for in point 44 of that communication, must not exceed what is necessary to overcome the capital short-fall of the bank concerned.

               6.

               The seventh indent of Article 2 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions must be interpreted as meaning that burden-sharing measures such as those provided for in points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication fall within the scope of the concept of ‘reorganisation measures’, within the meaning of that provision of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case C-588/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Omnicare, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-290/09: Omnicare, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/41

      Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Omnicare, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-290/09: Omnicare, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH
      (Case C-588/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/77)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Omnicare, Inc. (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH

         Form of order sought

      The appellant seeks an Order that the judgment under appeal be annulled. Further, the Appellant seeks an Order for its costs of this appeal and before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Appellant relies upon a single plea in law, namely that the General Court wrongly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) № 207/2009 (1) (the ‘New Regulation’). This case involves an opposition brought by Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (the ‘Opponent’) based upon the Opponent's German trade mark registration № 394 01348 and an allegation of the existence of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) № 40/94 (2) (‘the Old Regulation’) (but which is identical to the pertinent parts of the New Regulation). As the earlier mark had been registered for more than five years before the Opposition was commenced, it was necessary for the Opponent to prove that the mark has been put to genuine use in order for it to be used as a basis for the Opposition.
      It is submitted that the General Court wrongly held that the earlier trade mark upon which the Opponent relied had, as a matter of law, been put to genuine use. It is not disputed that the mark in question had actually been used in the course of trade by or with the consent of the Opponent in relation to the services for which it was registered. However, that use was in relation to the provision of services for which no charge was levied. Accordingly, as a matter of law, such use cannot be invoked to establish that the mark had been put to genuine use. This point has been the subject of some case law, which the Appellant submits (a) was mis-applied by the General Court, and (b) is inconsistent in any event. Accordingly, the matter of the legal consequences that ought to be drawn in such a factual scenario needs to be resolved by this Court.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
      OJ L 78, p. 1

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


title: Case C-417/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Scope — First subparagraph of Article 24(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property — Article 7(1)(a) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Action seeking the avoidance of a contract of gift of immovable property and the removal of an entry in the land register evidencing a right of ownership)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt
   (Case C-417/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Scope - First subparagraph of Article 24(1) - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Action seeking the avoidance of a contract of gift of immovable property and the removal of an entry in the land register evidencing a right of ownership))
   (2017/C 014/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wolfgang Schmidt

      Defendant: Christiane Schmidt

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that an action seeking the avoidance of a gift of immovable property on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated, provided for under Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, but within the special jurisdiction provided for under Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation.
   An action seeking the removal from the land register of notices evidencing the donee’s right of ownership falls within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for under Article 24(1) of the same regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.