24.1.2004             EN                    Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 21/1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
       Taking of the oath by a new Judge at the Court               Lists to be used for determining the composition of
                                                                                formations of the Court
                         (2004/C 21/01)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/03)
Having been appointed as Judge of the Court of Justice of the       At its meeting of 13 January 2004 the Court drew up the list
European Communities by decision of the Representatives of          referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the
the Governments of the Member States of 23 October 2003 (1),        purposes of determining the composition of the Grand
Sir Konrad Schiemann took the oath before the Court on              Chamber as follows:
7 January 2004.
                                                                    —     Mr Gulmann
(1) OJ L 285, 1.11.2003, p. 42.                                     —     Sir Konrad Schiemann
                                                                    —     Mr La Pergola
                                                                    —     Mr Lenaerts
                                                                    —     Mr Puissochet
          Assignment of a new Judge to Chambers                     —     Ms Silva de Lapuerta
                                                                    —     Mr Schintgen
                         (2004/C 21/02)
                                                                    —     Mr Rosas
                                                                    —     Ms Macken
At its meeting of 13 January 2004 the Court of Justice of the
European Communities decided to assign Sir Konrad to the            —     Mr Cunha Rodrigues
First and Third Chambers.
                                                                    —     Ms Colneric
The First and Third Chambers are in consequence composed            —     Mr von Bahr
as follows:
                                                                    At its meeting of 13 January 2004 the Court drew up the lists
First Chamber                                                       referred to in the first paragraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules
                                                                    of Procedure for the purposes of determining the composition
Mr Jann, President of the Chamber,                                  of the First and Third Chambers as follows:
                                                                    First Chamber
and Mr Rosas, Mr La Pergola, Mr von Bahr, Ms Silva de
Lapuerta, Mr Lenaerts and Sir Konrad Schiemann, Judges.             —     Mr La Pergola
Third Chamber                                                       —     Sir Konrad Schiemann
Mr Rosas, President of the Chamber,                                 —     Mr von Bahr
and Mr Schintgen, Ms Colneric and Sir Konrad Schiemann,             —     Mr Lenaerts
Judges.                                                             —     Mr Rosas
                                                                    —     Ms Silva de Lapuerta


title: Case T-259/11: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2013 — Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšanas centrs v Commission (Action for annulment — Phare programme — Project concerning the development of a centre for innovation and testing of construction products — Commission decision to undertake recovery of part of the sums paid — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/11

         Order of the General Court of 9 October 2013 — Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšanas centrs v Commission
   (Case T-259/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Phare programme - Project concerning the development of a centre for innovation and testing of construction products - Commission decision to undertake recovery of part of the sums paid - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 359/19
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšanas centrs (Jelgava, Latvia) (represented by: E. Darapoļskis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel and A. Sauka, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought by the association Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšanas centrs in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision notified to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia by letter dated 16 November 2010.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The application for access to Commission documents is also dismissed.

               3.

               Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšanas centrs shall pay the costs.

               4.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene from the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-573/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v Mostafa Lounani (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees — Article 12(2)(c) and Article 12(3) — Exclusion from being a refugee — Concept of ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ — Scope — Member of the leadership of a terrorist organisation — Criminal conviction of participation in the activities of a terrorist group — Individual assessment)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v Mostafa Lounani
   (Case C-573/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees - Article 12(2)(c) and Article 12(3) - Exclusion from being a refugee - Concept of ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ - Scope - Member of the leadership of a terrorist organisation - Criminal conviction of participation in the activities of a terrorist group - Individual assessment))
   (2017/C 104/18)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

      Defendant: Mostafa Lounani

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(2)(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the ground for exclusion of refugee status specified in that provision to be held to be established that an applicant for international protection should have been convicted of one of the terrorist offences referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism.

               2.

               Article 12(2)(c) and Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that acts constituting participation in the activities of a terrorist group, such as those of which the defendant in the main proceedings was convicted, may justify exclusion of refugee status, even though it is not established that the person concerned committed, attempted to commit or threatened to commit a terrorist act as defined in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. For the purposes of the individual assessment of the facts that may be grounds for a finding that there are serious reasons for considering that a person has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, has instigated such acts or has otherwise participated in such acts, the fact that that person was convicted, by the courts of a Member State, on a charge of participation in the activities of a terrorist group is of particular importance, as is a finding that that person was a member of the leadership of that group, and there is no need to establish that that person himself or herself instigated a terrorist act or otherwise participated in it.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-90/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/23

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-90/07)
   (2007/C 95/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2004/12/EC expired on 18 August 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 47, p. 26.


title: Case C-380/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 13 September 2001 in the case of Dr Gustav Schneider v Bundesminister für Justiz

text:
C 348/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.12.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Sixth
gerichtshof by order of that court of 13 September 2001                       Council VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (2);
in the case of Dr Gustav Schneider v Bundesminister für
                              Justiz                                    —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-380/01)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2001/C 348/24)
                                                                        Under Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Directive, Member States are
                                                                        required to include in the taxable amount not only that which
                                                                        constitutes the consideration paid by the purchaser or to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsge-                  provider of the service, but also the subsidies provided by third
                                                                        parties to the supplier of the goods or the provider of the
richtshof (Administrative Court, Austria) of 13 September
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 October             service, provided that such subsidies are ‘directly linked to the
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Gustav                 price of such supplies’.
Schneider v Bundesminister für Justiz on the following ques-
tion:                                                                   The Commission argues that the assistance paid to the
                                                                        processing undertakings which produce dried fodder consti-
                                                                        tutes part of the price of the good produced by such
Is Article 6 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implemen-           undertakings, thus falling within the category ‘subsidies directly
tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women            linked to the price of such supplies’ and which must therefore
as regards access to employment, vocational training and                be subject to tax.
promotion, and working conditions (1) to be interpreted as
meaning that the possibility required by that article of pursuing
claims (in the present case, a claim for compensation) by               (1) OJ 1995 L 15, p. 11.
judicial process is not adequately satisfied by the Austrian            (2) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) alone, in view
of that court’s legally limited powers (a court which hears
appeals on points of law only with no fact-finding powers)?
(1) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.
                                                                        Action brought on 5 October 2001 against the French
                                                                        Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                                                                                (Case C-384/01)
Action brought on 4 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                                          (2001/C 348/26)
                         (Case C-381/01)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 October
                         (2001/C 348/25)
                                                                        2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by E. Traversa and C. Giolito, acting as Agents,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     the Court should:
represented by Enrico Traversa, acting as Agent.
                                                                        —     Declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to the
                                                                              fixed part of the prices for gas and electricity supplied by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the public networks, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under Article 12(3)(a) and (b) of Sixth
—     Declare that, by failing to levy value added tax (VAT) on               Council Directive 77/388/EC of 17 May 1977 on the
      the assistance paid pursuant to Council Regulation (EC)                 harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
      No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common                             to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
      organisation of the market in dried fodder (1), the Italian             uniform basis of assessment (1),


title: Case C-267/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 June 2000, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against the Zoological Society of London

text:
C 259/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.9.2000
      Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 cannot be invoked in               Action brought on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of
      order to justify a compulsory, systematic scheme for the            the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
      registration of licences issued by other Member States.                                         Netherlands
      The view taken by the Netherlands authorities is based
      on a misapprehension of the relationship between                                              (Case C-254/00)
      Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of the directive and between
      the directive and Article 43 EC. In addition, the measures                                    (2000/C 259/09)
      applied by the Netherlands authorities are dispro-
      portionate.                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of the European
—     Infringement of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439,                   Communities, represented by H. van Lier, Legal Adviser in the
      resulting from the reduction in the period of validity of a         Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
      driving licence issued by another Member State following            for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
      the date of issue in that Member State: the Netherlands             Cruz, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
      authorities apply the national rules concerning the val-
      idity of licences as from the time of becoming established          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      in the Netherlands. In that respect too, the Netherlands
      authorities have misapprehended the relationship                    1.    Declare that, by failing to notify all of the laws, regulations
      between Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of the directive,                   and administrative provisions necessary for compliance
      in that, for a great many licence-holders, the mutual                     with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and
      recognition provided for by Article 1(2) is ineffective. The              of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of
      Netherlands authorities have misunderstood the notion                     standards for the transmission of television signals (1) or
      of ‘mutual recognition’: this does not mean that holders                  by failing to adopt the measures necessary for that
      of driving licences issued by the Netherlands and by other                purpose, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
      Member States must be treated in the same way, but that                   fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      the legal effects attaching to driving licences issued by
                                                                          2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
      another Member State are the same as in the issuing
      Member State. The aim is not to allow discrimination
      against holders of Netherlands driving licences by com-             Pleas in law and main arguments
      parison with holders of other driving licences, but to
      prevent a situation in which the latter group are faced             In view of the mandatory nature of the third paragraph of
      with obstacles to the exercise of freedom of establishment          Article 249 EC, Member States are required to adopt the
      in the Netherlands.                                                 measures necessary for compliance with directives which are
                                                                          addressed to them, and to do so before the expiry of the period
                                                                          specified therein. That period expired on 23 August 1996
—     Infringement of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 91/439: the            without the Netherlands having adopted the requisite pro-
      Netherlands statute prescribes a minimum age of 18 for              visions.
      drivers of category D vehicles, whereas, in accordance
      with Article 6(1)(c) of the directive, that age should be           (1) OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51.
      21.
—     Infringement of point 4 in Annex III to Directive 91/439:
      inasmuch as Article 100 of the (Netherlands) Reglement
      Rijbewijzen (Rules on Driving Licences) does not provide            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      for a periodic medical examination for Group 2 drivers              Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
      (lorry drivers and bus drivers), it is contrary to point 4 in       (Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 June 2000, in
      Annex III to the directive.                                         the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                                against the Zoological Society of London
                                                                                (Case C-267/00)
(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 February 1996 in Case                                    (2000/C 259/10)
    C-193/94 Skanavi [1996] ECR I-929.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
                                                                          Office) of 21 June 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 3 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against the Zoologi-
                                                                          cal Society of London, on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/7
How are the words ‘managed and administered on an essen-                 of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero
tially voluntary basis by persons who have no direct or indirect         Jordana and C. Van Der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting
interest, either themselves or through intermediaries, in the            as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
results of the activities concerned’ in the second indent to             office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Article 13 A (2) (a) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of              Centre, Kirchberg.
17 May 1977 to be interpreted, having regard to the facts of
the present case? In particular:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
(a)   what are the criteria for determining by whom a body is
      managed and administered for the purposes of the                   (1) declare that, by failing to comply, within the time-
      provision; do these words refer                                          limits laid down in Council Directive 76/160/EEC of
                                                                               8 December 1975 (1) concerning the quality of bathing
      (i)   only to the members of the senior controlling organs               water, with the obligations imposed by Articles 4(1) and
            of the body, or                                                    6(1) of the directive, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
                                                                               failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law;
      (ii) to any individuals involved in any managerial or
            administrative function whatsoever? If so, what are          (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
            the criteria for determining whether a person is
            involved in a relevant managerial or administrative
            function?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(b) what are the criteria for determining whether manage-
      ment and administration of a body is conducted on an
      essentially voluntary basis; do these words refer                  Well over 14 years after the expiry of a ten-year time-
                                                                         limit following the publication of Directive 76/160/EEC, the
      (i)   to the extent to which the management and adminis-           obligation to achieve certain results with regard to the
            tration of the body is conducted by remunerated              minimum quality of bathing water has still not been complied
            and unremunerated persons respectively, and if so,           with in the Kingdom of the Netherlands in respect of 8 % of
            how is the test to be applied; or                            the fresh water bathing areas and 1,3 % of coastal waters
                                                                         (1999 bathing season).
      (ii) to the individual financial basis upon which each
            of the persons conducting the management and
            administration of the body performs that role (for           During that season, no samples whatever had yet been taken
            example, none of those persons must receive more             in four of the 528 fresh water bathing areas (0,7 %).
            than nominal remuneration); or
      (iii) to some other test or criterion, and if so, what is          (1) OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1.
            that test or criterion?
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    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, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                         hof by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the case of
                                                                                Wolfgang Seeling against Finanzamt Starnberg
Action brought on 3 July 2000 by Commission of the                                                  (Case C-269/00)
European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                            Netherlands
                                                                                (2000/C 259/12)
                          (Case C-268/00)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2000/C 259/11)                                European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                         (Federal Finance Court) of 25 May 2000, received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 3 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought             Wolfgang Seeling against Finanzamt (Tax Office) Starnberg on
before the Court of Justice on 3 July 2000 by the Commission             the following question:


title: Case C-352/04: Order of the President of the Court (First Chamber) of  14 December 2005  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln) — mdm Versandservice GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Order of the President of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2005 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln) — mdm Versandservice GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-352/04) (1)

   (2006/C 143/57)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-153/01: Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/11
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     assess the right of Fedon and order the Community to
      pay compensation of LIT 4 432 590 743 or such other                The applicant, a European Central Bank employee, is the father
      sum as the Court may consider reasonable, subject to the           of two sons. He applied for an education allowance in
      possibility of adjustment for the duration of the obligation       respect of his sons’ attendance at an international school. The
      to pay additional duties, plus interest at the Italian             defendant refused that application, referring to the fact that
      statutory rate from the time of actual payment by Fedon            the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for receiving the
      to the American customs administration of 95,4 % of the            allowance since he was not entitled to an expatriation allow-
      value of the goods (increased duties), until settlement,           ance of 16 %.
      plus interest for delay of 8%, in accordance with Com-
      munity case-law, in the event of delay in paying the sum           The applicant submits that the refusal to grant the education
      claimed;                                                           allowance is contrary to Treaty rights conferred on him and in
                                                                         particular infringes the duty owed by the defendant to have
—     order the Community to pay the costs.                              regard for his interests.
                                                                         He also submits that Article 19(i) of the Conditions of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Employment offends against the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                         The defendant has acknowledged in Article 9(c) of the
                                                                         Conditions of Employment that it is obliged to observe that
The applicants, which export spectacle cases to the United               principle. An education allowance under Article 19 of the
States, claim damages for loss following the adoption by the             Conditions of Employment is granted only to employees who
United States of certain retaliatory commercial measures                 already satisfy the conditions for the grant of an expatriation
affecting their industry.                                                allowance. Therefore, two categories of employees, namely
                                                                         employees who meet those conditions and employees who do
                                                                         not, are treated differently. The unequal treatment would be
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in              objectively justified only if the aim of the expatriation allow-
Case T-69/00 FIAM and FIAM Technologies v Council and                    ance were identical to that of the education allowance, which
Commission (1).                                                          is not the case. The aims of the allowances are fundamentally
                                                                         different, so that it is not justified to link the grant of an
                                                                         education allowance pursuant to Article 19(i) of the Conditions
(1) OJ C 135 of 13. 5. 2000, p. 30.                                      of Employment to the conditions for an expatriation allowance
                                                                         pursuant to Article 17.
Action brought on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro
              against the European Central Bank                          Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
                                                                         Moreno against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                         (Case T-152/01)
                                                                                (Case T-153/01)
                         (2001/C 275/24)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/25)
                   (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro, of Frankfurt am Main,               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by Dr Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia             European Communities on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Mittländer, Lawyers.                                                     Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                         sanden and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by the European Central Bank to
      refuse him an education allowance for his two sons;                —     annul the decision taken by the defendant to apply an
                                                                               age limit set at 65 years to freelance interpreters and
—     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.                        therefore to apply that age limit to her;
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   29.9.2001
—     make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-            Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against
      ally assessed at 1 euro;                                                 the Commission of the European Communities.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                                   (Case T-155/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
regularly for the Commission since 1986. After her 65th birth-           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
day, the applicant noticed that the Commission no longer                 European Communities on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton,
contacted her with new offers of work. Later, the Commission             residing in Oxford (UK), represented by Paul Harris of Monck-
informed the applicant of its decision no longer to engage               ton Chambers, London (UK).
conference interpreters over the age of 65 and thus no longer
to call on her services on that ground. According to the
Commission, that decision was taken after the Council adopted            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regulation No 628/2000 (1) amending Article 78 of the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communi-               1.    Annul the Commission decision of 3 October 2000;
ties (CES).
                                                                         2.    Declare that that decision and/or the Commission’s letter
                                                                               of termination was unlawful and/or in breach of the
According to the applicant, the Commission gives Article 78                    notice of termination provisions in Article 5 of the
of the CES as the reason for its decision to make termination                  contract and/or Article 47 of the Conditions of Employ-
of the employment of freelance interpreters subject to                         ment of Other Servants of the European Communities;
Article 74 of the CES, and thus subject also to the age limit of
65 years. However, the applicant claims that Article 74 is               3.    Order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-
clearly not intended to govern the situation of freelance                      sation for breach of contract, and/or for breach of
interpreters. It is not feasible to consider that the engagement               Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment, in the
of an interpreter ceases as provided for by Article 74 ‘at the                 amounts referred to in the compensation section of this
end of the month in which the agent reaches the age of                         application;
65 years’, since such engagement could be reduced to a matter
of days. Any age limit in respect of the provision of services           4.    Order the Commission to pay to the applicant his costs;
by freelance interpreters can therefore be considered to be a                  and
condition which applies only in the event of recruitment of a
freelance interpreter. However, there is no statutory provision          5.    Take such further measures and grant such further relief,
regarding any age limit with regard to pursuit of their activities.            under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or Rules of
                                                                               Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as may be
                                                                               necessary, just or equitable.
The applicant claims that to subject freelance interpreters who
provide their services to the Community institutions to an
age limit constitutes discrimination between those freelance
interpreters who provide their services to the Community                 Pleas in law and main arguments
institutions and those who do not.
                                                                         The applicant in the present case is a Chartered Engineer,
                                                                         specialising in power and nuclear projects, who in October
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads, moreover,                1999 was recruited by the Commission to set up in Research
breach of the principle of non-retroactivity, acquired rights,           Directorate-General XII a help desk for small and medium-
legitimate expectations, sound administration and legal cer-             sized enterprises involved with innovation and research.
tainty. In addition to her claims for annulment, the applicant
also seeks compensation for material and non-material damage
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision.             The application seeks the annulment of the decision contained
                                                                         in a letter of termination, of 3 October 2000, which purported
                                                                         to ‘terminate [the applicant’s] employment’, ‘with effect from
(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000 of                16.10.2000’.
    20 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC)
    No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
    European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of             The applicant claims wrongful dismissal and states to that end
    Other Servants of the Communities (OJ L 76 of 25.3.2000, p. 1).      that:
                                                                         —     The commencement date of the contract was 1 November
                                                                               1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance Of 12 October 1999 in Case T-216/96: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly Massalombarda Colombani SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Withdrawal of financial assistance - Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Principle of the legality of the penalty imposed - Legitimate expectations - Abuse of power - Principle of proportionality - Statement of reasons)

text:
C 352/32                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.12.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 12 October 1999
                                                                                of 6 October 1999
in Case T-216/96: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly
Massalombarda Colombani SpA v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                               in Case T-110/97: Kneissl Dachstein Sportartikel AG v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund — Withdrawal of financial assistance —
Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 — Regulation (EEC)                              (Decision authorising State aid for restructuring — Starting
No 4253/88 — Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 — Regulation                      point for the time-limit for bringing an action against a
(EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Principle of the legality of the                third party — Requirements for the compatibility of the aid)
penalty imposed — Legitimate expectations — Abuse of
power — Principle of proportionality — Statement of
                              reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/57)
                          (1999/C 352/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-216/96: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly                 In Case T-110/97: Kneissl Dachstein Sportartikel AG, estab-
Massalombarda Colombani SpA, established at Massa Lombar-                  lished at Molln (Austria), represented by Georg Divok, of the
da (Italy), represented by Marina Averani and Andrea Pisanes-              Vienna Bar, against Commission of the European Communities
chi, of the Sienna Bar, and Paolo de Caterini, of the Rome Bar,            (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz and Frank Paul), supported by the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               Republic of Austria (Agent: Christine Stix-Hackl and Michael
Charles Turk, 13B, Avenue Guillaume, against Commission of                 Krassnigg) and by HTM Sport- und Freizeitgeräte AG, estab-
the European Communities (Agents: Paolo Ziotti, Francesco                  lished at Schwechat (Austria), represented by Wolfgang Knapp,
Paolo Ruggeri Laderchi and Massimo Moretto) — application                  of the Brussels and Frankfurt Bars, and Till Müller-Ibold, of the
for the annulment of Commission Decision C (96) 2760 of                    Frankfurt Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
3 October 1996 withdrawing the financial assistance granted                the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8 to 10 Rue Mathias
from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                      Hardt — application for the annulment of Commission
Fund to the company Massalombarda Colombani SpA by                         Decision 97/81/EC of 30 July 1996 concerning aid granted by
Commission Decision C (90) 950/356 of 29 July 1990, and,                   the Austrian Government to the undertaking Head Tyrolia
in so far as is necessary, the avoidance of any act of                     Mares in the form of injections of capital (OJ 1997 L 25, p. 26)
the Commission connected with that decision, in particular                 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Working Document VI/1216/86-IT on the fixing of the                        Composition), composed of A. Potocki, President, and K. Le-
maximum allowable financial assistance from the European                   naerts, C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Pala-
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, ‘Orientation’ sec-               cio González, Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a
tion, in the context of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of              judgment on 6 October 1999, in which it:
15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the
conditions under which agricultural products are processed
and marketed (OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1) — the Court of First                     1. Dismisses the application;
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Admin-
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October            2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission
1999, in which it:                                                              and by the intervener Head Tyrolia Mares;
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                           3. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs together with those
     incurred by the defendant.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.


title: Case T-181/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Financial adjustments — Fruit and vegetables — Dairy products — Arable farming — Rural development — Non-compliance with payment deadlines)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-181/06) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Financial adjustments - Fruit and vegetables - Dairy products - Arable farming - Rural development - Non-compliance with payment deadlines)
   (2008/C 272/37)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G.Aiello, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C.Cattabriga and F.Jimeno Fernandez, acting as Agents, and A.Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/334/EC of 28 April 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 124, p. 21) in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of fruit and vegetables, milk and dairy products, arable farming, rural development as well as concerning payment deadlines.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 1999 in Case C-311/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protokikeio Peiraios): Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Tax on company profits)

text:
C 204/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            17.7.1999
     surface freshwaters as ‘waters affected by pollution’, and therefore    having their seat in another Member State and carrying on business
     the designation as ‘vulnerable zones’ in accordance with                in the first Member State through a permanent establishment situated
     Article 3(2) of that directive of all known areas of land which         there, excludes the possibility, accorded only to companies having
     drain into those waters and contribute to their pollution, where        their seat in the first Member State, of benefiting from a lower rate
     those waters contain a concentration of nitrates in excess of           of tax on profits, when there is no objective difference in the situation
     50 mg/l and the Member State concerned considers that the               between those two categories of companies which could justify such a
     discharge of nitrogen compounds from agricultural sources makes         difference in treatment.
     a ‘significant contribution’ to that overall concentration of
     nitrates.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
2. Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 91/676.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 4 May 1999
                                                                             in Case C-262/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Sozialgericht Aachen): Sema Sürül v Bundesanstalt
                                                                                für Arbeit (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   Association Council — Social Security — Principle of
                                                                             non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Direct
                                                                             effect — Turkish national authorised to reside in a Member
                          of 29 April 1999
                                                                             State — Entitlement to family allowances under the same
                                                                                conditions as nationals of that State)
in Case C-311/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Dioikitiko Protokikeio Peiraios): Royal Bank of                                                 (1999/C 204/23)
       Scotland plc v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Tax on                                             (Language of the case: German)
                          company profits)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (1999/C 204/22)                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-262/96, Reference to the Court under Article 234
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           EC (ex Article 177) by the Sozialgericht Aachen (Germany) for
                                                                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Sema Sürül and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on
                                                                             the interpretation of certain provisions of Decision No 3/80 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
                    in the European Court Reports)                           application of the social security schemes of the Member
                                                                             States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and
In Case C-311/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                members of their families (OJ 1983 110, p. 60) — the Court
the EC Treaty by the Dioikitiko Protodikio Peiraios (Greece)                 composed          of:     G.C. Rodrı́guez      Iglesias,      President,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Cham-
court between Royal Bank of Scotland plc and Elliniko                        bers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann J.L. Murray,
Dimosio (Greek State) — on the interpretation of Article 7 of                D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and R. Schintger
the EEC Treaty (now Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and Article 52               (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General; A. La Pergola; H. von
of the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May
P. Jann, President of the First Chamber, acting for the President            1999, in which it held that:
of the Fifth Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O.
Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; Advo-                1. On a proper construction of Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80
cate General; S. Alber; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                        of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it                     application of the social security schemes of the Member States
held that:                                                                        of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members
                                                                                of their families, a Member State may not require of a Turkish
                                                                                national covered by that decision whom it has authorised to
Articles 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty are to be interpreted as                      reside in its territory, but who holds in that host State only a
precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the tax legislation             conditional residence authorisation issued for a specified purpose
in question in the main proceedings, which, in the case of companies              and for a limited duration, that, in order to receive family


title: Case C-271/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 June 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Elena Di Doi against Azienda per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 June 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Elena Di Doi against Azienda per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)
   (Case C-271/04)
   (2004/C 228/45)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo (District Court, Tolmezzo, Italy) of 16 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 25 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Elena Di Doi against Azienda per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) on the following question:
   Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1)of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2)of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

      (1)  OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1.


title: Case C-436/03: Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 289/16              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the European                        The concept of ‘approximation of the provisions laid down by
  Parliament against the Council of the European Union                   law, regulation or administrative action in Member States’
                                                                         must be interpreted to include measures for approximation in
                                                                         the form of a regulation directed at creating harmonisation at
                        (Case C-436/03)                                  Community level in order to overcome the restrictions of
                                                                         territorial application of the law of Member States to the extent
                                                                         necessary to contribute to the establishment and functioning
                        (2003/C 289/31)                                  of the internal market.
                                                                         (1) OJ 2003 L 207, p. 1.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 15 October 2003 by the European Parliament,
represented by J.-L. Rufas Quintana and E. Waldherr, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         Action brought on 16 October 2003 by the Commission
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:                    of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
1.    annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July
      2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative                                              (Case C-440/03)
      Society (1);
                                                                                (2003/C 289/32)
2.    maintain the same in force until relevant new legislation
      comes into force, adopted within a reasonable period on
      the proper legal basis;
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
3.    order the Council to pay the costs.                                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 16 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Bernard Schima, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Council adopted the contested regulation on the basis of             1.    declare that by failing — with the exception of provisions
Article 308 EC, which provides for a unanimous decision of                     of the Länder Saxony-Anhalt, Bavaria and Thuringia — to
the Council after consulting the European Parliament. How-                     adopt or to communicate to the Commission the laws,
ever, the regulation should have been based on Article 95 EC,                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary in
necessitating the codecision procedure under Article 251 EC,                   order to implement Directive 2000/9/EC of the European
as was indeed suggested by the Commission in its initial                       Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating
proposal of 6 March 1992 and in its amended proposal of                        to cableway installations designed to carry persons (1), the
6 July 1993.                                                                   Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under that directive;
                                                                         2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Article 95 is the proper legal basis for the adoption of the
Statute for a European Cooperative Society in that this is a
question of the approximation of the laws of the Member
States by regulation in order to enable the creation of European
cooperatives which contribute to the establishment and func-             Pleas in law and main arguments
tioning of the internal market. The European Cooperative
Society introduced by the contested regulation is not a
                                                                         The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 May
‘supranational’ instrument since it cannot be distinguished in
any way from the models of cooperatives existing in the                  2002 without all German Länder having adopted the necessary
                                                                         provisions.
Member States and since the regulation consistently refers
back to the national law of the Member State in which the
Society has its registered office. Therefore the European
                                                                         (1) OJ L 106, 3.5.2000, p. 21.
Cooperative Society is always subject to the domestic law of
each Member State, while having a Community framework to
facilitate cross-border management.


title: Case T-51/03: Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 101/45
Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG                                                       —      There is no basis for stating
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                            that the cafetière in question
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                               is a manifestation of the ‘usu-
                                                                                al shape of the product’.
                         (Case T-51/03)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                        (2003/C 101/79)
                  (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                          Action brought on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc against
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   the Commission of the European Communities
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                                (Case T-53/03)
11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG, Triengen (Switzerland),
represented by Jacob S Ørndrup, lawyer
                                                                                (2003/C 101/80)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                   (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 5 December 2002
      in Case No R452/2001-2 concerning EC trade mark
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      application No 000353854;
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Slough, United Kingdom, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC
                                                                          and Mr Alexandre Nourry, Solicitor with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community trade mark          A three-dimensional trade mark              —     Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested Decision insofar
sought:                       in the form of a ‘cafetière’ (push-               as it relates to BPB
                              down coffee pot) — application
                              No 353854                                   —     In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar
                                                                                as it relates to BPB or, in the further alternative, reduce
                                                                                the fine imposed on BPB to such amount as the Court
Goods or services:            Nice classification 21 (non-elec-
                              tric coffee makers)                               determines in accordance with law
                                                                          —     Subject to the annulment of Article 3 of the Decision or
Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                                the reduction in the fine, order repayment of the principal
Board of Appeal:              examiner                                          sum paid by BPB together with such interest as the Court
                                                                                should determine in accordance with law
Decision of Board of          Dismissal of appeal
Appeal:                                                                   —     Order the Commission to pay BPB’s costs.
Pleas in law:                 —     The defendant’s decision is
                                    contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of
                                    Regulation No 40/94 (1):              Pleas in law and main arguments
                              —     The trade mark has the
                                    necessary           distinctive       By its decision which forms the subject matter of the present
                                    character.                            action, the defendant found that the applicant and three
                                                                          other undertakings, namely Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche
                              —     The fact that the plaintiff’s         Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux, had
                                    cafetière design is copied            infringed Article 81 paragraph 1 EC by participating in a
                                    should not in itself lead to          complex and continuing agreement from 1992 until 1998
                                    the trade mark application’s          with the object of stabilising the principal EU markets in
                                    being refused on grounds of           plasterboard. The applicant denies that any agreement of the
                                    lack of distinctive character.        type alleged existed.


title: Case T-382/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Capela & Irmãos (VOGUE)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/47

         Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Capela & Irmãos (VOGUE)
   (Case T-382/08)
   (2008/C 301/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda. (Porto, Portugal)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 in case R 328/2003-2 so as to hold that the appeal brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is rejected and the Community trade mark concerned is admitted;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 in case R 328/2003-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs, including the costs of appeal incurred before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VOGUE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 25 and 41

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration No 143 183 of the word mark ‘VOGUE Portugal’ for goods in class 25; Portuguese business name No 32 046 ‘VOGUE-SAPATARIA’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: (i) Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal did constitute proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark; (ii) Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the goods in question are similar; (iii) Infringement of Articles 61(1) and 62(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly based its ruling on the fact that the applicant failed to challenge the findings of the Opposition Division as to the proof of use or as to the similarity of the goods and services in question, as well as on the fact that before the Opposition Division the applicant implicitly considered that the proof of use was sufficient.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-252/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Administrative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the appeal brought by the Minister for the Economy against Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly Cor Therapeutics Inc.

text:
C 200/12              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ammi-                Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992
nistrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that                   concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certifi-
Court of 13 November 2002 in the action brought by                       cate for medicinal products (1)?
Doctor Giorgio Emanuele Mauri against Ministry of Justice
                                                                         (1) OJ L 182 of 2.7.1992, p. 1.
                         (Case C-250/03)
                         (2003/C 200/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per la Lombardia (Regional Administrative                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
Court for Lombardy) of 13 November 2002, received at the                 by order of that Court of 1 April 2003 in the proceedings
Court Registry on 11 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in                    between CLT-UFA S.A. and Finanzamt Köln-West
the action brought by Doctor Giorgio Emanuele Mauri against
Ministry of Justice on the following question:
                                                                                (Case C-253/03)
Must the provisions of the Treaty enshrining, as interpreted by
the Court of Justice, the Community principles concerning
competition and non-discrimination, be interpreted as                                             (2003/C 200/20)
precluding on the ground of illegality national legislation, in
particular Article 22 of legislative decree no 1578 of
27 November 1933, which makes access to legal practice
before the courts subject to success in a prior State examina-           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
tion inasmuch as, for the purposes of assessment of aptitude             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
and professional ability, it confers far-reaching powers on the          (Federal Finance Court) of 1 April 2003, received at the Court
local management entities of the professional body to which              Registry on 13 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
the practitioners already operating in the specific geographical         proceedings between CLT-UFA S.A. and Finanzamt (District Tax
territory belong.                                                        Office) Köln-West on the following questions:
                                                                         1.    Is Article 52 in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC
                                                                               Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that charging the
                                                                               profits made in 1994 by a capital company from another
                                                                               Member State through a branch in Germany to German
                                                                               corporation tax at the rate of 42 % (the ‘place of business
                                                                               tax rate’) constitutes an infringement of the right to
                                                                               freedom of establishment, given that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
trative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the
appeal brought by the Minister for the Economy against                         —    the profits would have been charged to German
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly Cor Therapeu-                             corporation tax at the rate of only 33,5 % if they
                             tics Inc.                                              had been made by a company subject to unlimited
                                                                                corporation tax in Germany which was a subsidiary
                                                                                of a capital company from another Member State
                         (Case C-252/03)                                            and had distributed all the profits to its parent by
                                                                                the end of 30 June 1996,
                         (2003/C 200/19)
                                                                               —    the profits would initially have been charged to
                                                                                German corporation tax at the rate of 45 % if the
                                                                                subsidiary had retained them until the end of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              30 June 1996, but the liability to corporation tax
European Communities by order of the Cour Administrative                            would have been reduced retrospectively to 30 % if
(Administrative Court) of 3 June 2003, received at the Court                        the profits had been distributed in full after 30 June
Registry on 13 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                           1996?
appeal brought by the Minister for the Economy against
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly Cor Therapeutics
Inc. on the following question:                                          2.    If the place of business tax rate infringes Article 52 in
                                                                               conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty, is it
                                                                               necessary to reduce it to 30 % for the year in dispute in
Does a marketing authorisation issued by the Swiss authorities                 order to cure the infringement?
constitute the first authorisation to place a product on the
market in the Community within the meaning of Article 13 of


14.9.2002              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 219/13
        Removal from the register of Case C-450/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-490/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/30)                                                       (2002/C 219/33)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 7 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-450/01: Commission of the European                register of Case C-490/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-451/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-16/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/31)                                                       (2002/C 219/34)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 26 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-451/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-16/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-453/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-17/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/32)                                                       (2002/C 219/35)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 18 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-453/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-17/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 October 1997 in Case T-213/97 R: Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and Others v. Council of the European Union (Application for interim measures - Anti-dumping - Non-adoption of definitive measures - Suspension of operation - Interim measures)

text:
6 . 12 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 370/7
                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
            OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 2 October 1997                                                     of 1 October 1997
                                                                        in Case T-230/97 R: Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit
in Case T-2 13/97 R: Committee of the Cotton and Allied
                                                                        Europe Ltd & Co. v. Commission of the European
Textile Industries of the European Union ( Eurocoton ) and                                          Communities
            Others v. Council of the European Union
                                                                        (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —
(Application for interim measures — Anti-dumping —                      Reduction coefficient — Suspension of operation —
Non-adoption of definitive measures — Suspension of                     Interim measures — Admissibility of an application for
                  operation — Interim measures)                               interim measures — Serious and irreparable harm)
                            ( 97/C 370/ 16 )                                                       ( 97/C 370/ 17 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        In Case T-230/97 R: Comafrica SpA, established in Genoa
                                                                        ( Italy ), Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., established in
                                                                        Hamburg ( Germany ), represented by Bernard O'Connor,
In Case T-2 13/97 R : Committee of the Cotton and Allied                Solicitor, and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca
Textile Industries of the European Union ( Eurocoton ), an              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
association based in Brussels, Ettlin Gesellschaft fur                  Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie
Spinnerei und Weberei AG, established at Ettlingen                      Adélaïde v. Commission of the European Communities
( Germany ), Textil Hof Weberei GmbH & Co . KG,                         ( Agents: Xavier Lewis and James Macdonald Flett),
established at Hof ( Germany ), H. Hecking Söhne GmbH                   supported by French Republic ( Agent: Marc Perrin de
& Co., established at Stadtlohn ( Germany ), Spinnweberei               Brichambaut ) — application under Articles 185 and 186
Uhingen GmbH, established at Uhingen ( Germany ), FA                    of the EC Treaty for ( i ) an order suspending the operation
Kümpers GmbH & Co ., established at Rheine ( Germany ),                 of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1155/97 of 25 June
Tenthorey SA, established at Éloyes ( France ), HPG-GAT                  1997 fixing the reduction coefficients for the
Tissages,        established       at    Cornimont       ( France ),    determination of the quantity of bananas to be allocated
Etablissements des Fils de Victor Perrin SARL, established              to each operator in categories A and B from the tariff
at Thiéfosse ( France ), Filatures & Tissages de Saulxures              quota for 1997 ( OJ L 168 , 26 . 6 . 1997, p. 67) in so far as
sur-Moselotte, established at Saulxures-sur-Moselotte                   that regulation affects the applicants, or, alternatively,
 (France ), Tissage Mouline Thillot, established at Le Thillot          suspending its operation erga omnes and ( ii ) an order
 ( France ), Tessival SpA, established at Azzano S. Paolo               requiring the setting of a specific reduction coefficient for
 (Italy), Filature Niggeler & Küpfer SpA, established at                the applicants, such that they are issued with the correct
Capriolo ( Italy ), Standardtela SpA, established at Milan               number of import licences for bananas in the remaining
 ( Italy ), represented by Clive Stanbrook QC, and Alan                  months of 1997, in accordance with their rights under
Dashwood, Barrister of the Inner Temple, with an address                 Community law, and ( iii ) any additional orders which the
 for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène                     Court considers necessary for the purposes of granting
Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, v. Council of the                  interim relief to the applicants — the President of the
European Union ( Agents : Marta Arpio Santacruz, Antonio                 Court of First Instance made an order on 1 October 1997,
Tanca , Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch ) —                       the operative part of which is as follows:
 application for interim measures in connection with the
 Council's decision to reject the proposal submitted to it by
the Commission [ COM ( 97 ) 160 final , of 21 April 1997]                1 . grants the French Republic leave to intervene in
 for the adoption of a regulation imposing a definitive anti                 support of the form of order sought by the
 dumping duty on imports of unbleached ( grey) cotton                         Commission;
 fabrics originating in the People 's Republic of China,
 Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey — the
 President of the Court of First Instance made an order on               2 . grants the applicants ' request for confidential
                                                                              treatment of certain information submitted to the
 2 October 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                   Court;
                                                                         3 . orders non-confidential copies of the file documents to
  1 . dismisses the application for interim measures;                         be sent to the French Government;
                                                                         4 . dismisses the application for interim measures -,
 2.    reserves the costs .
                                                                         5.   reserves the costs .


title: Case C-335/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Scottish Land Court — United Kingdom) — Robin John Feakins v The Scottish Ministers (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 — Article 18(2) — National reserve — Exceptional circumstances — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Scottish Land Court — United Kingdom) — Robin John Feakins v The Scottish Ministers
   (Case C-335/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 - Article 18(2) - National reserve - Exceptional circumstances - Principle of equal treatment))
   (2015/C 007/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Scottish Land Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Robin John Feakins

      Defendant: The Scottish Ministers

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2004 of 29 October 2004, must be interpreted as applying, first, in the case where a farmer meets the conditions for the application of any two or more of Articles 19 to 23a of Regulation No 795/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, and, second, in the case where a farmer who meets the conditions for the application of at least one of Articles 19 to 23a of Regulation No 795/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, also meets the conditions for the application of at least one of Articles 37(2), 40, 42(3) and 42(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.

               2)

               Article 18(2) of Regulation No 795/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, is invalid in so far as it precludes a farmer who has suffered exceptional circumstances, within the meaning of Article 40 of Regulation No 1782/2003, from benefiting from both an adjustment of his reference amount under that provision and an additional reference amount from the national reserve under one of Articles 19 to 23a of Regulation No 795/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, whereas a farmer who has not faced such circumstances and who has been allocated a reference amount calculated pursuant to Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 may receive both that amount and a reference amount from the national reserve under one of Articles 19 to 23a of Regulation No 795/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-387/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 264/24               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        1.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Communities on 15 September 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                          represented by I. Khalkias and E. Svolopoulou, Members of the
                                                                          State Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Under Article 18 of Directive 96/67/EC the Member States are              at the Greek Embassy, 27 rue Marie-Adelaïde.
entitled to take measures to protect the rights of workers.
However, such measures must be without prejudice to the
application of that directive, and subject to the other provisions
of Community law. Although Council Directive 2001/23/EC                   The applicant asks the Court to:
of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’                  —     annul Commission Decision C(2003)2587 excluding
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or                 from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
parts of undertakings or businesses (2) does not apply in cases                 by the Member States under the EAGGF — Guarantee
where only a specific share of the market is ‘transferred’ to                   Section, in so far as concerns financial corrections
another undertaking as part of an opening-up of the market,                     chargeable to the Hellenic Republic in the wine, livestock
Paragraph 8(2) of the Verordnung über Bodenabfertigungs-                        premiums and olive oil sectors for the year 1999-2000.
dienste auf Flugplätzen (BADV) authorises the managing body
of an airport to impose a general obligation on new bidders to
take on airport staff, as part of the standard terms for tender
and selection procedures, irrespective of whether there has
been a transfer for the purposes of Directive 2001/23/EC. The             Pleas in law and main arguments
clear effect of Paragraph 8(2) of the BADV is therefore to deter
new undertakings from entering the market and to impede
their competitiveness, thereby reducing the benefits of liberalis-
ation as regards reduction of prices and improvement in the               1.     Infringement of law and of general principles.
quality of services.
                                                                          2. Infringement of the principle of proportionality —
Furthermore, Paragraph 9(3) of the BADV permits the manag-                misuse of discretion.
ing body of an airport to charge higher fees for access to
airport installations in cases where suppliers and selfhandlers
do not take on any staff from the airport operator upon
entering the market. That provision infringes Article 16(3) of            3. Error as to the facts, misassessment of the factual
Directive 96/67/EC which provides that the fee for access to              circumstances, inadequate statement of reasons for the contest-
airport installations is to be determined according to relevant,          ed decision.
objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria. The
failure to take on airport staff is not a criterion which meets
any of those requirements. Rather, that provision even enables
                                                                          4. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 5(2)(c) of
the airport operator to charge selfhandlers or suppliers of
                                                                          Regulation No 729/70.
services a higher fee for access to airport installations if they
do not take on its staff, and thereby makes it possible for the
airport to discriminate against its direct competitors.
(1) OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.
(2) OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
                                                                          Action brought on 16 September 2003 by the Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                                                                                Republic
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by the Hellenic
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                                              (Case C-392/03)
                             munities
                                                                                (2003/C 264/42)
                         (Case C-387/03)
                         (2003/C 264/41)
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 Septem-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European              represented by A. Bordes and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.