title: Case C-188/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers SA

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers SA
   (Case C-188/15)
   (2015/C 221/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)

      Defendant: Micropole Univers SA

      Question referred

   ‘Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 78/2000/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that the wish of a customer of an information technology consulting company no longer to have the information technology services of that company provided by an employee, a design engineer, wearing an Islamic headscarf, is a genuine and determining occupational requirement, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out?’

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-170/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Rivella International v OHIM — Baskaya di Baskaya Alim (BASKAYA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BASKAYA — Earlier international figurative mark Passaia — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Relevant territory — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Rivella International v OHIM — Baskaya di Baskaya Alim (BASKAYA)
   (Case T-170/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BASKAYA - Earlier international figurative mark Passaia - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Relevant territory - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland) (represented initially by: C. Spintig, U. Sander and H. Förster, and subsequently by C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and R. Jacobs, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas (Grosseto, Italy) (represented by: H. Vogler, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2011 (Case R 534/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rivella International AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case C-362/05 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2005 by Jacques Wunenburger against the judgment delivered on 5 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/15

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2005 by Jacques Wunenburger against the judgment delivered on 5 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-362/05 P)
   (2005/C 281/29)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 2005 by Jacques Wunenburger, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 5 July 2005 in Case T-370/03 Wunenburger v Commission

         The appellant also requests the Court of Justice to give final judgment on the dispute and, granting the appellant's initial application in Case T-370/03, to:

               —

               annul the decision made by the appointing authority on 11 March 2003 to reject the appellant's candidature for the post of Director of the ‘Sub-Saharan Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ Directorate (AIDCO.C), subsequent to the appointing authority's decision of 8 January 2003 to appoint Amir NAQVI to that post;

               —

               annul the explicit decision to reject the appellant's complaint, that complaint having been made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 2 April 2003, and rejected by an explicit decision of 14 July 2003, notified to the appellant on 11 August 2003;

               —

               annul the appointment of Amir NAQVI to the post of Director of the ‘Sub-Saharan Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ Directorate (AIDCO.C), which, inter alia, led to the rejection of the appellant's candidature for the vacant post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The grounds of the appeal are, in accordance with Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, infringement of Community law and a breach of procedure before the Court of First Instance which adversely affects the appellant's interests.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2000 in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99: Carlo Ripa di Meana and Others v European Parliament (Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retirement pension scheme — Time-limit for submitting request — Knowledge acquired — Admissibility)

text:
C 95/10                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.3.2001
1.    dismisses the application;                                            3.    Orders the Commission to repay to the applicant the sums
                                                                                recovered from her pension, amounting to LUF 181 446;
2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                            4.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
(1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.98.                                                5.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 86, 27.3.1999.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 8 November 2000
                                                                                of 26 October 2000
in Case T-210/98: E v Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99: Carlo Ripa
                                                                                di Meana and Others v European Parliament (1)
(Officials — Dependent child allowance — Double allow-
ance for child affected by mental or physical handicap —
          Suspension — Recovery of undue payment)                           (Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retire-
                                                                            ment pension scheme — Time-limit for submitting request
                                                                                — Knowledge acquired — Admissibility)
                          (2001/C 95/17)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/18)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-210/98: E, a former official of the European
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented initially by
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99: Carlo Ripa di
C. Revoldini and subsequently by J. Choucroun, both of the
                                                                            Meana, former Italian Member of the European Parliament,
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy), Leoluca Orlando,
at the Chambers of the latter, 84 Grand-Rue, against the
                                                                            former Italian Member of the European Parliament, residing in
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                            Palermo (Italy), Gastone Parigi, former Italian Member of the
dis-Kayser, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Wägenbaur) —
                                                                            European Parliament, residing in Pordenone (Italy), represented
applications for the annulment, first, of a Commission decision
                                                                            by V. Viscardini Donà, assisted by G. Donà, of the Padua Bar,
of 14 July 1998 suspending payment of a double dependent
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
child allowance and retrospectively withdrawing the benefit of
                                                                            E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against European Parlia-
the latter for the period from 1 January 1997 until 14 July
                                                                            ment (Agents: A. Caiola, G. Ricci and F. Capelli) — application
1998, and, second, of a Commission decision of 22 July 1998
                                                                            for annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament of
recovering from the applicant’s retirement pension sums
                                                                            4 February 1999 rejecting the requests submitted by Mr Ripa
totalling LUF 181 446 allegedly paid unduly by way of that
                                                                            di Meana, Mr Orlando and Mr Parigi, seeking to obtain
allowance, and for an order that the Commission repay to the
                                                                            retroactive application of the provisional retirement pension
applicant the amounts withheld from her pension — the Court
                                                                            scheme referred to in Annex III to the Rules Governing the
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung,
                                                                            Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the
President of the Chamber, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                            European Parliament — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                            Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
a judgment on 8 November 2000, in which it:
                                                                            and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 October 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 14 July 1998 in so far as
      it withdraws the grant of the double allowance for a dependent        1.    annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 4 February
      child provided for in Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations of             1999 No 300762 and No 300763 rejecting the requests
      Officials of the European Communities for the period from                   submitted by Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando for the
      1 January 1997 until 14 July 1998;                                          provisional pension scheme referred to in Annex III to the
                                                                                Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to
2.    Annuls the Commission decision of 23 July 1998, recovering                  Members of the European Parliament to apply with retroactive
      the sum of LUF 181 446;                                                     effect;
 ---pagebreak--- 24.3.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 95/11
2.    dismisses as inadmissible the application in Case T-85/99;              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3.    orders the Parliament to bear its own costs, and to pay those of                          of 21 November 2000
      Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando, in Cases T-83/99 and
      T-84/99;                                                            in Case T-214/99: Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benı́tez v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
4.    orders Mr Parigi to bear his own costs, as well as to pay those
      of the Parliament, in Case T-85/99.                                 (Officials — Recruitment — Access to internal competitions
                                                                          — Competition notice — Condition relating to length of
                                                                               service — Professional experience of the candidate)
(1) OJ No C 160 of 5/6/99.
                                                                                (2001/C 95/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-214/99: Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benı́tez, an official
                                                                          of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               London, represented by J.-N. Louis, G. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at Société de gestion fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois,
                      of 26 September 2000                                against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          J. Currall and D. Waelbroeck) — application for the annulment
                                                                          of the decision of the internal selection boards for competitions
in Case T-138/99: Luc Verheyden v Commission of the
                                                                          COM/T/R/ADM/A/98, COM/R/5179/98, COM/R/5182/98,
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          COM/R/5183/98, COM/R/5188/98 and COM/R/5190/98 not
                                                                          to admit him to those competitions — the Court of First
(Officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits                 Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
— New fact — Promotion — Comparative examination on                       J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                             the merits)                                  trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 November
                                                                          2000, in which it:
                          (2001/C 95/19)                                  1.    dismisses the application;
                                                                          2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 333 of 20/11/99.
In Case T-138/99: Luc Verheyden, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Angera
(Italy), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for the annulment of                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 with
retroactive effect from 10 October 1989 and of the decision                                     of 12 December 2000
not to promote the applicant in the 1998 promotion exercise,
and for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which                   in Case T-11/00: Michel Hautem v European Investment
he claims to have suffered — the Court of First Instance                                                 Bank (1)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for            (Officials — Removal from post — Failure to comply with a
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2000, the               judgment annulling a decision — Article 233 EC — Non-
operative part of which is as follows:                                    contractual liability of the Community — Non-material
                                                                                damage — Compensation)
1.    The application is dismissed;
                                                                                (2001/C 95/21)
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                          In Case T-11/00: Michel Hautem, a servant of the European
                                                                          Investment Bank, residing in Schouweiler (Luxembourg), rep-
                                                                          resented by M. Karp and J. Choucroun, of the Luxembourg


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 1998 in Case C-185/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Benefits for large families - Discrimination)

text:
19.12.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/9
Provinciale (Provincial Tax Court), Milan (Italy) for a           obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (First
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
court between Abruzzi Gas SpA (Agas) and                          of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La
Amministrazione Tributaria di Milano Ð on the                     Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July         a judgment on 27 October 1998, in which it:
1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
(OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended
by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ
L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),             1. Declares that, failing to adopt within the period
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Second Chamber,               prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F.                   provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and                   93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the
K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                    minimum safety and health requirements for work on
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                  board fishing vessels (13th individual directive within
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 October 1998, in                 the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/
which it has ruled:                                                    EEC), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                       Article 13(1) thereof;
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning           2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not
preclude the levying of registration duty in respect of the       (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
acquisition of companies by a company which already
holds all the shares in the companies acquired.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 October 1998
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-185/96: Commission of the European
                                                                               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                     of 27 October 1998                                    Benefits for large families Ð Discrimination)
      in Case C-364/97: Commission of the European                                         (98/C 397/15)
                  Communities v. Ireland (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Non-transposition of
                    Directive 93/103/EC)                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
                         (98/C 397/14)
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                            published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  In Case C-185/96: Commission of the European
In Case C-364/97: Commission of the European                      Communities (Agent: Maria Patakia) v. Hellenic Republic
Communities (Agent: Pieter Jan Kuijper) v. Ireland (Agent:        (Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Stamatina
Michael A. Buckley) Ð application for a declaration that,         Vodina) Ð application for a declaration that, by
by not adopting and/or by not communicating to the                precluding by regulation or administrative practice on the
Commission the laws, regulations and administrative               grounds of their nationality employed or self-employed
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/         workers from other Member States and the members of
103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum                 their families from being attributed large-family status for
safety and health requirements for work on board fishing          the purpose of the award of special benefits for such
vessels (13th individual directive within the meaning of          families and from being awarded family allowances, the
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 307,                 Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
13.12.1993, p. 1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its               Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of Council
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/10             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on                           employed persons and to members of their families
freedom of movement for workers within the Community                        moving within the Community;
(OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475), Article 7 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June
1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of
a Member State after having been employed in that State            2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(OJ, English Special Edition 1970(II), p. 402), Article 7 of
Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to             (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
remain in the territory of another Member State after
having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed
capacity (OJ L 14, 20.1.1975, p. 10) and Article 3 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 od 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community (consolidated
version, OJ C 325, 10.12.1992, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de                                          (Fifth Chamber)
Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                                    of 29 October 1998
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in             in Case C-375/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
which it:                                                          the Pretura Circondariale di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di
                                                                   Conegliano): Galileo Zaninotto v. Ispettorato Centrale
                                                                   Repressione Frodi Ð Ufficio di Conegliano Ð Ministero
                                                                          delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (1)
1. Declares that, by precluding by regulation or
    administrative practice on the grounds of their                (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the agricultural
    nationality employed of self-employed workers from             markets Ð Market in wine Ð Compulsory distillation
    other Member States and the members of their families                                      scheme)
    from being attributed large-family status for the
    purpose of the award of special benefits for such                                       (98/C 397/16)
    families and from being awarded family allowances,
    the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
    Ð Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
    Ð Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/
        68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
        for workers within the Community;
                                                                   In Case C-375/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                   Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Conegliano (District
    Ð Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                     Magistrates' Court, Treviso, Conegliano Division), Italy,
        No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970 on the right of                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
        workers to remain in the territory of a Member             that court between Galileo Zaninotto and Ispettorato
        State after having been employed in that State;            Centrale Repressione Frodi Ð Ufficio di Conegliano Ð
                                                                   Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali
                                                                   (Conegliano Office of the Central Inspectorate for the
    Ð Article 7 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of                  Prevention of Fraud in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food
        17 December 1974 concerning the right of                   and Forest Resources) Ð on the validity of the fourth
        nationals of a Member State to remain in the               indent of Article 1(3) of Commission Regulation (EC)
        territory of another Member State after having             No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory
        pursued therein an activity in a self-employed             distillation as provided for in Article 39 of Council
        capacity; and                                              Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/
                                                                   1994 wine year from certain detailed rules for the
                                                                   application thereof (OJ L 44, 17.2.1994, p. 9), of Article
                                                                   1(1)(c), (2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC)
    Ð Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/               No 465/94 of 1 March 1994 fixing for the 1993/1994
        71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social            wine year the percentages of table wine production to be
        security schemes to employed persons, to self-             delivered for compulsory distillation as provided for in


title: Case C-153/06: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/28

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-153/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/52)

      Language of the case: Swedish

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

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 March 2005 in Case T-305/03 Opus Dent GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition withdrawn — No need to give judgment)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 2 March 2005
   in Case T-305/03 Opus Dent GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to give judgment)
   (2005/C 155/42)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-305/03: Opus Dent GmbH, established in Freising (Germany), represented by P.J.A. Munzinger and S. Abel, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Agent: B. Müller), the intervener before the Court being Dornier MedTech Systems GmbH (formerly: Dornier Medizintechnik GmbH), established at Weβling (Germany), represented by J. Kroher and A. Hettenkofer, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2003 (Case R 579/2002-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Opus Dent GmbH and Dornier MedTech Systems GmbH — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to give judgment on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-337/05: Action brought on 15 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/9

         Action brought on 15 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-337/05)
   (2005/C 281/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia and X. Lewis, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, since the Italian Government and, in particular, the Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence, Economics and Finance, for Agricultural and Forestry Policy, and for Infrastructure and Transport, and the Department of Civil Protection of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, have adopted a procedure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding to the firm ‘Agusta’ contracts for the purchase of helicopters manufactured by ‘Agusta’ and ‘Agusta Bell’ to meet the requirements of the military corps of the fire brigade, the Carabinieri, the State Forestry Corps, the Coastguard, the Revenue Guard Corps, the State Police and the Department of Civil Protection, without any tendering procedure, in particular without complying with the procedures provided for by Directive 93/36/EEC (1) and, earlier, by Directive 77/62/EEC, (2) Directive 80/767/EEC (3) and 88/295/EEC, (4) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned directives;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Government of the Italian Republic and, in particular, the Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence, Economics and Finance, for Agricultural and Forestry Policy, and for Infrastructure and Transport, and the Department of Civil Protection of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, have adopted a procedure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding to the firm ‘Agusta’ contracts for the purchase of helicopters manufactured by ‘Agusta’ and ‘Agusta Bell’ to meet the requirements of the military corps of the fire brigade, the Carabinieri, the State Forestry Corps, the Coastguard, the Revenue Guard Corps, the State Police and the Department of Civil Protection, without any tendering procedure, in particular without complying with the procedures provided for by Directive 93/36/EEC and, earlier, by Directive 77/62/EEC, Directive 80/767/EEC and 88/295/EEC, and has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned directives.
   Following receipt of a complaint, the Commission acquired information from which it appears that the Italian Government has operated that procedure for a long time.
   The Commission takes the view that that practice is incompatible with the directives on public supply contracts referred to above in so far as none of the conditions to which recourse to the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice is subject appears to have been satisfied.
   The Commission considers, moreover, that Italy has not shown that the practice in question is justified on the basis of Article 2 of Directive 93/36/EEC, according to which the directive is not to apply to supply contracts which are declared secret or the execution of which must be accompanied by special security measures in accordance with the laws, regulations or administrative provisions in force in the Member States concerned or when the protection of the basic interests of the Member State's security so requires.

      (1)  OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 13 of 15.01.1977, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 215 of 18.08.1980, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 127 of 20.05.1988, p. 1.


title: Case C-434/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2012 — ‘Slancheva sila’ EOOD v Izpalnitelnen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2012 — ‘Slancheva sila’ EOOD v Izpalnitelnen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia
   (Case C-434/12)
   2012/C 366/47
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Slancheva sila’ EOOD

      Defendant: Izpalnitelnen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

      Questions referred

               1.

               How is the concept ‘artificially created conditions’ to be interpreted in the light of the provision contained in Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011? (1)

               2.

               Is Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 to be interpreted as being incompatible with Article 7(2) of the Bulgarian Regulation No 29 of 11 August 2008, according to which financial aid is not to be granted to applicants/beneficiaries who are found to be functionally dependent and/or who have artificially created the conditions required for obtaining aid, with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of the measure?

               3.

               Is Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 to be interpreted as being incompatible with the case-law in the Republic of Bulgaria, according to which the conditions required for obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of the measure have been artificially created if there is a legal connection between the applicants?

               4.

               Does the use by different applicants who are independent legal persons of independent neighbouring sites which were part of a single property before the application was submitted, and does the actual connection that is found to exist, for example applicants having the same agents, suppliers, executives, place of business and address, constitute ‘artificially created conditions’?

               5.

               Is it necessary to establish that there is deliberate coordination between the applicants and/or a third party with a view to obtaining an advantage for a specific applicant?

               6.

               What constitutes an advantage within the meaning of Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011, in particular, does it include drawing up several smaller investment proposals with a view to a specific applicant receiving funding for each of them at the maximum rate of EUR 200 000 even if they were submitted by various different applicants?

               7.

               Is Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 to be interpreted as calling into question the case-law in the Republic of Bulgaria, according to which the provision in fact requires that the following three cumulative conditions be met: 1. that there be functional dependence and/or artificially created conditions for obtaining aid, 2. that this be intended to obtain an advantage, and 3. that it be contrary to the objectives of the measure?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8).


title: Action brought on 25 January 1999 by H. Drabbe against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-27/99)

text:
C 71/38              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              13.3.1999
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by H. Drabbe against              It took no account of the interests of the official
       the Commission of the European Communities                   concerned.
                       (Case T-27/99)
                       (1999/C 71/70)                               Ð Breach of the principle of proportionality
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    Since the transfer is not a charge on the Community, the
                                                                    Community interest does not justify the application of a
An action against the Commission of the European                    time-limit.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
1999 by H. Drabbe, an official of the Commission of the             Ð Breach of the principle of legal certainty
European Communities, residing in Overijse (Belgium),
represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer with a right of
audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, and                  The Commission's argument that the applicant must have
L. Y. J. M. Parette, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for       been aware of the time-limit, because he was informed
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, of the             thereof when he was a member of the temporary staff,
Luxembourg Bar, 31 Grand Rue.                                       disregards the fundamental difference between the
                                                                    situation under the Staff Regulations of an official and
                                                                    that of a member of the temporary staff.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð Breach of the duty to state reasons
Ð annul the Commission decision of 19 October 1998
    refusing to allow him to transfer his national pension
    rights to the Community pension scheme;                         The Commission refers only to the existence of a
                                                                    time-limit, and does not respond to the applicant's
                                                                    assertion that he was not adequately informed of the
Ð order the defendant to pay his costs.
                                                                    time-limit, after he changed status as a result of his
                                                                    appointment as a permanent official.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð The unlawful nature of the time-limit
There is no basis in Community law for the deadline of
six months employed in the contested decision.                             Removal from the register of Case T-55/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/71)
Ð Breach of the duty of information
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant was not adequately informed of the
existence of the aforementioned time-limit.
                                                                    By order of 14 January 1999 the President of the Third
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Ð Breach of the principle of proper administration and              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
    the duty to have regard for the official's interests            Case T-55/98: European Association of Craft, Small and
                                                                    Medium-Sized Enterprises (UEAPME) v Council of the
The Commission refused the applicant's request on the               European Union.
basis of a time-limit of which he had not been adequately
informed.                                                           (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.


title: Case T-180/00: Action brought on 5 July 2000 by Astipesca, S.L. (formerly Martín Vázquez, S.A.) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 259/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             9.9.2000
Action brought on 5 July 2000 by Astipesca, S.L. (for-                   one of the vessels contributed and following the substitution
merly Martı́n Vázquez, S.A.) against the Commission of                  of a Senegalese partner in place of the Moroccan one, in
                  the European Communities                               consequence of the adoption of a series of measures restricting
                                                                         access to the Moroccan fishing grounds. The Commission
                                                                         proceeded to pay the first part of the subsidy, amounting to
                         (Case T-180/00)                                 80 %, in November 1997. Subsequently, and on the basis of
                                                                         the alleged lack of any activity in Senegal of the vessel ‘Nuevo
                                                                         Usisa’ over a certain period of time, the Commission effected
                         (2000/C 259/54)                                 a proportional reduction in the aid.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 July 2000 by Astipesca, S.L.                   —      infringement of essential procedural requirements, con-
(formerly Martı́n Vázquez, S.A.), established at Huelva, Spain,                sisting of a failure to comply with the procedure laid
represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo and Dolores Domı́ng-                     down in the rules on aid, inasmuch as the Commission
uez Pérez, lawyers.                                                             effected a de facto suspension and reduced the subsidy in
                                                                                issue without complying with the procedural require-
                                                                                ments laid down by the above-mentioned Council Regu-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     lation No 4028/86 and Commission Regulation
                                                                                No 1956/91, and by Regulation No 1116/88 (3); in par-
                                                                                ticular, the defendant institution failed to consult the
—     annul the contested measures, by which the European                       Standing Committee for the Fisheries Industry, to consult
      Commission reduced the financial aid in issue;                            the Spanish authorities and give them an opportunity to
                                                                                make their views known in course of the procedure, or
                                                                                to adopt the suspension and reduction measures by way
—     order, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction and on
                                                                                of a formal decision, doing so instead by means of an
      the basis of the claims put forward in the present action,
                                                                                ordinary letter;
      the payment by the European Commission to Astipesca,
      S.L. (formerly Martı́n Vázquez, S.A.) of compensation for
      the loss and damage caused by (1) the delay in payment
      and (2) the unjustified reduction of part of the aid;
                                                                         —      violation of the principle of proportionality, having
                                                                                regard to the merely temporary nature of the infringement
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                       alleged, and inasmuch as the Commission has sought to
      pay to the applicant all the costs arising from the                       penalise the exchange of fishing zones, which, in the
      proceedings.                                                              applicant’s view, is not fundamentally necessary.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                             Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the
The present action seeks annulment of the decisions conveyed,                fisheries and aquaculture sector (OJ L 376 of 31.12.1986, p. 7).
according to the applicant, in the letter of 18 May 2000 from
the Head of the Unit for Financial and Human Resources in                (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1956/91 of 21 June 1991
the Fisheries Directorate-General confirming the reduction in                laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regu-
                                                                             lation (EEC) No 4028/86 as regards measures to encourage the
financial aid initially granted by Decision C (93) 1823 final/9
                                                                             creation of joint enterprises (OJ L 181 of 8.7.1991, p. 1).
and the Commission’s telex of 5 May 2000 giving notice of
the partial payment of the aid in question.                              (3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 of 20 April 1988
                                                                             laying down detailed rules for the application of decisions granting
                                                                             aid for projects concerning Community measures to improve and
                                                                             adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and in
The applicant recalls in that regard that, pursuant to Council               structural works in coastal waters (OJ L 112 of 30.4.1988, p. 1).
Regulation No 4028/86 (1) and Commission Regulation
No 1956/91 (2), it submitted to the Commission a proposal
for a joint enterprise with a Moroccan partner for the
catching of certain species, to which three freezer ships were
contributed. The Commission agreed to the grant of financial
aid totalling ECU 3 047 190 in relation to that project. With
the mandatory authorisation of the defendant institution, that
project was altered on two occasions, following the sinking of


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  8 December 2005  in Case C-220/03: European Central Bank v Federal Republic of Germany (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities — Agreement on the seat of the European Central Bank — Arbitration clause — Immovable property leased by the ECB — Indirect taxes passed on in leasing or letting charges)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 8 December 2005
   in Case C-220/03: European Central Bank v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Agreement on the seat of the European Central Bank - Arbitration clause - Immovable property leased by the ECB - Indirect taxes passed on in leasing or letting charges)
   (2006/C 36/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-220/03: Action under Article 238 EC, brought on 21 May 2003, European Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli and M. Benisch, assisted by H.-G. Kamann and M. Selmayr, Rechtsanwälte) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: U. Forsthoff, assisted by W. Hölters, Rechtsanwalt) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix Hackl, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Case T-4/16: Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/49

         Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit)
   (Case T-4/16)
   (2016/C 156/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rabbit, Inc. (Redwood City, United States) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DMG Media Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘rabbit’ — Application for registration No 11 701 869

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2015 in Case R 2133/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal was wrong in law in stating that, when comparing the respective goods/services of the EU trade mark application and the opponent’s EU trade mark registration, the comparison must consider only the goods and services as mentioned in the lists and not in the light of the actual use made of the marks;

               —

               The Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for discounting actual evidence of use;

               —

               The Board of Appeal failed to take proper account of the descriptiveness of the ‘rabbit’ mark.


title: Order of the Court of 25 November 2014 in Case E-4/13 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Article 38 SCA — ESA’s Rules on public access to documents 2012)

text:
               4.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/8

         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 25 November 2014
   in Case E-4/13
   Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Article 38 SCA — ESA’s Rules on public access to documents 2012)
   (2015/C 183/09)
   In Case E-4/13, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s (‘ESA’) Decision of 7 February 2013 to deny access to the inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak) after the Court annulled ESA’s first decision on 21 December 2012 in Case E-14/11. The contested decision was made under the new rules on public access to documents that ESA enacted on 5 September 2012 by way of Decision No 300/12/COL (‘RAD 2012’) (not published in the Official Journal), which was given retroactive effect to DB Schenker’s access request of 3 August 2010, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, made an order on 25 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicants are to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority;

               3.

               Posten Norge AS is to bear its own costs.


title: Case F-66/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2012 — Cristina v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Decision of the selection board in the competition not to admit the applicant to the tests — Remedies — Court action brought without waiting for a decision on the administrative complaint — Admissibility — Specific conditions for entry to the competition — Professional experience required)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2012 — Cristina v Commission
   (Case F-66/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Decision of the selection board in the competition not to admit the applicant to the tests - Remedies - Court action brought without waiting for a decision on the administrative complaint - Admissibility - Specific conditions for entry to the competition - Professional experience required)
   2012/C 287/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alma Yael Cristina (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and P. Pecho, and subsequently B. Eggers, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the chairman of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Assistants (AST 1) not to admit the applicant to the tests.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mrs Cristina to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 51.


title: Case T-497/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/58

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)
   (Case T-497/12)
   2013/C 26/117
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 679/2011-4; and.

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘DRACULA BITE’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588321

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-502/10: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment and protection of human health — Genetically modified food and feed — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/12

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-502/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 173/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/428/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122x1507xNK603 (DAS-59122-7xDAS-Ø15Ø7xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 201, p. 41).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-20/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Forlì by order of that court of 14 December 2004 in the criminal proceedings against K.J.W. Schwibbert

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Forlì by order of that court of 14 December 2004 in the criminal proceedings against K.J.W. Schwibbert
   (Case C-20/05)
   (2005/C 93/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Forlì (Italy) of 14 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending against K.J.W. Schwibbert on the following questions:

               —

               whether the affixing of the distinctive sign SIAE [società italiana degli autori ed editori] is compatible with Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1) on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, and Articles 3 EC and 23 EC to 27 EC;

               —

               whether it is further compatible with Council Directive 83/189/EEC (2) and Council Directive 88/182/EEC (3).

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.

      (2)  OJ 1983 L 109 of 26.04.1983, p. 8.

      (3)  OJ 1988 L 81 of 26.03.1988, p. 75.


title: Case C-115/04: Action brought on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/32

         Action brought on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-115/04)
   (2004/C 94/72)
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2001/17/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings, 1 since it has not brought into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, or at least has not informed the Commission of them;

               2.

               Order Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 20 April 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 March 2003 in Case T-398/02 R: Linea GIG Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim relief — Competition — Payment of fines — Bank guarantee — Urgency — Exceptional circumstances — Balancing of interests)

text:
C 171/28                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                              INSTANCE                                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Pignat-
                                                                            aro-Nolin and O. Beynets) — application for suspension of the
                          of 11 April 2003                                  operation of the decision of the Commission of 30 October
                                                                            2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and
                                                                            Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video
in Case T-392/02 R: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council
                      of the European Union                                 Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/
                                                                            36.321 Omega — Nintendo) — the President of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance made an order on 27 March 2003, the operative
(Procedure for interim relief — Directive 70/524/EEC —                      part of which is as follows:
Withdrawal of authorisation for the placing on the market
of an additive in feedingstuffs — Regulation (EC) No 1756/
2002 — Application for suspension of operation — Admissi-                   1.    The application is dismissed.
bility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of
                               interests)                                   2.    Costs are reserved.
                          (2003/C 171/47)
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-392/01 R: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Weesp (Netherlands) represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against the Council of the European Union (Agents:                                             of 28 April 2003
M. Balta and M. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for the
suspension of operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/                 in Case T-15/03: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe against Office
2002 of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 70/                    for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs as regards                                          and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive and amending
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265,
p. 1) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an                (Community trade mark — Annulment — Time limits —
order on 11 April 2003, the operative part of which is as                                        Manifest Inadmissibility)
follows:
                                                                                (2003/C 171/49)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            In Case T-15/03: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, residing in Bilbao
                                                                            (Spain), against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                            proceedings being: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA,
                              INSTANCE                                      established in Madrid, — appeal against the decision of the
                                                                            Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                         of 27 March 2003                                   the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October
                                                                            2002 in Case R-918/2001-2 relating to the opposition pro-
in Case T-398/02 R: Linea GIG Srl v Commission of the                       ceedings between José Luis Zuazaga Meabe and Banco Bilbao
                     European Communities                                   Vizcaya Argentaria SA — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                            Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, and J. Pirrung
(Application for interim relief — Competition — Payment                     and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar; has made an order
of fines — Bank guarantee — Urgency — Exceptional                           on 28 April 2003 by which it:
           circumstances — Balancing of interests)
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
                          (2003/C 171/48)
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.
In Case T-398/02 R: Linea GIG Srl, having its registered office
in Florence (Italy), represented by L. D’Amario and B. Calzia,


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 264, 1.11.2003

text:
15.11.2003        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         C 275/55
                                                             III
                                                          (Notices)
                                                      (2003/C 275/93)
                  Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
           OJ C 264, 1.11.2003
           Past publications
           OJ C 251, 18.10.2003
           OJ C 239, 4.10.2003
           OJ C 226, 20.9.2003
           OJ C 213, 6.9.2003
           OJ C 200, 23.8.2003
           OJ C 184, 2.8.2003
                                                These texts are available on:
                                           EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-489/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Ronny Verest and Gaby Gerards v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Income tax — Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation — Taxation of income from immovable property received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence — Method of exemption with maintenance of progressivity in the Member State of residence — Difference in treatment between immovable property situated in the Member State of residence and in another Member State)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/17

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Ronny Verest and Gaby Gerards v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-489/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Income tax - Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation - Taxation of income from immovable property received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Method of exemption with maintenance of progressivity in the Member State of residence - Difference in treatment between immovable property situated in the Member State of residence and in another Member State))
   2014/C 409/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ronny Verest and Gaby Gerards

      Respondent: Belgische Staat

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it is liable to lead, when a progressivity clause contained in a convention for the prevention of double taxation is applied, to a higher rate of tax on income merely because the method for determining income from immovable property results in income deriving from immovable property that is not rented out situated in another Member State being assessed at a higher amount than income from such property situated in the first Member State. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is in fact the effect of the legislation at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-44/07: Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/10

         Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-44/07)
   (2007/C 69/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 14 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 41, 2003, p. 26.


title: Case C-21/05: Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/9

         Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-21/05)
   (2005/C 69/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. Yerrell and A. Aresu, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (1), or in any event by not communicating the same to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 1 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 302, 1.12.2000, p. 57.


title: Case F-103/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Blank and Others v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/51

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Blank and Others v Commission
   (Case F-103/06) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 317/94
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 35.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2000 in Case T-252/97: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries — Request for additional import licences — Case of hardship — Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Limitation of damage — Action for annulment)

text:
4.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/21
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 September 2000
                      of 19 September 2000
                                                                         in Case T-259/97: Rui Teixeira Neves against the Court of
                                                                                Justice of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-252/97: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission
               of the European Communities (1)                           (Officials — Duty to act in good faith and maintain the
                                                                         dignity of the office — Principle of the separation of powers
                                                                         — Freedom of association — Disciplinary measures —
(Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries                                                 Sanction)
— Request for additional import licences — Case of hardship
— Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation                                                 (2000/C 316/39)
(EEC) No 404/93 — Limitation of damage — Action for
                            annulment)                                                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                         In Case T-259/97: Rui Teixeira Neves, represented by Adriano
                         (2000/C 316/38)                                 Encarnação, of the Oporto Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the applicant’s address, 100 Rue de Steinsel,
                                                                         L-7254 Bereldange, against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agents: Initially T. Millett, subsequently
                   (Language of the case: German)                        M. Schauss and F. Ferreira Pinto) — first, an action for
                                                                         annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 20 January
                                                                         1997 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction of
In Case T-252/97: Anton Dürbeck GmbH, established in                     relegation in step and, secondly, an action for damages seeking
Frankfurt am Main (Germany), G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Colog-              an order against the defendant requiring it to make good the
ne, Berrenrather Straße 313, Cologne (Germany) v Com-                    non-material damage allegedly suffered as a result of that
mission of the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Bor-                  decision — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
chardt and H. van Vliet), supported by Kingdom of Spain                  composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
(Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and by French Republic (Agents:            P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — application for partial              12 September 2000, in which it:
annulment of the Commission decision of 10 July 1997 on                  1.    dismisses the application.
the adoption of transitional measures in favour of the applicant
within the framework of the common organisation of the                   2.    orders each party to bear its own costs.
market in bananas — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for           (1) OJ 1997 C 357.
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those                                 of 20 September 2000
      incurred by the Commission;
                                                                         in Case T-261/97 Eleonore Orthmann v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear
      their own costs.                                                   (Officials — Scientific or technical services — Advancement
                                                                         from Category B to Category A — Interest in bringing
                                                                                proceedings)
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.97.
                                                                                (2000/C 316/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         In Case T-261/97: Eleonore Orthmann, an official of the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, posted to the


title: Case C-413/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 22 July 2013 — FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 22 July 2013 — FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden
   (Case C-413/13)
   2013/C 325/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Den Haag

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media

      Respondent: Staat der Nederlanden

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the competition rules of European Union law be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a collective labour agreement concluded between associations of employers and associations of employees, which provides that self-employed persons who, on the basis of a contract for professional services, perform the same work for an employer as the workers who come within the scope of that collective labour agreement must receive a specific minimum fee, falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU, specifically on the ground that that provision occurs in a collective labour agreement?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does that provision then fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU in the case where that provision is (also) intended to improve the working conditions of the employees who come within the scope of the collective labour agreement, and is it also relevant in that regard whether those working conditions are thereby improved directly or only indirectly?


title: Case C-424/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2010 — Tomasz Ziolkowski v Land Berlin

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2010 — Tomasz Ziolkowski v Land Berlin
   (Case C-424/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tomasz Ziolkowski

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first sentence of Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted as conferring on Union citizens who have resided legally for more than five years on the basis only of national law in the territory of a Member State, but who did not during that period fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, a right of permanent residence in that Member State?

               2.

               Are periods of residence of Union citizens in the host Member State which took place before the accession of their Member State of origin to the European Union also to be counted towards the period of lawful residence under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p 77.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2004 in Case C-524/03: Commission of the European Communities v G. & E. Gianniotis EPE (Arbitration clause — Reimbursement of amounts advanced — Interest on late payment — Default proceedings)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 5 October 2004
   in Case C-524/03: Commission of the European Communities v G. & E. Gianniotis EPE (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Reimbursement of amounts advanced - Interest on late payment - Default proceedings)
   (2004/C 300/49)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-524/03, application under Article 238 EC brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Triantafyllou, assisted by N. Korogiannakis) against G. & E. Gianniotis EPE, trading under the name of ‘Nosokomeio Agia Eleni’, established in Piraeus (Greece), the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, delivered a judgment on 5 October 2004 in which it ordered:

               1.

               G. & E. Gianniotis EPE to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the amount of EUR 212 010.17 by way of principal, plus interest thereon as follows:

                           —

                           in respect of the amount of EUR 72 136.15, at the rate of 6 % per annum with effect from 30 September 2001 until 31 December 2002, at the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from 1 January 2003 until the date of the judgment herein, and at the annual rate applied pursuant to the Greek law, that is to say currently Article 3(2) of Law No 2842/2000 on the replacement of the Drachma by the Euro, subject to a limit of a rate of 8 % per annum with effect from the date of the judgment herein pending full payment of the debt;

                           —

                           in respect of the amount of EUR 28 758.20, at the rate of 5.25 % per annum with effect from 30 November 2001 until 31 December 2002, at the rate of 7.25 % per annum with effect from 1 January 2003 until the date of the judgment herein, and at the annual rate applied under the aforementioned provision of Greek legislation, subject to a limit of a rate of 7.25 % per annum with effect from the date of the judgment herein pending full payment of the debt;

                           —

                           in respect of the amount of EUR 111 115.82, at the rate of 4.78 % per annum with effect from 15 January 2002 until 31 December 2002, at the rate of 6.78 % per annum with effect from 1 January 2003 until the date of the judgment herein, and at the annual rate applied under the aforementioned provision of Greek legislation, subject to a limit of a rate of 6.78 % per annum with effect from the date of the judgment herein pending full payment of the dept.

               2.

               G. & E. Gianniotis EPE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6 March 2004.


title: Case C-116/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań (Republic of Poland) lodged on 7 March 2011 — Bank Handlowy, Ryszard Adamiak, Christianapol sp. z o. o.

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań (Republic of Poland) lodged on 7 March 2011 — Bank Handlowy, Ryszard Adamiak, Christianapol sp. z o. o.
   (Case C-116/11)
   2011/C 152/24
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy Poznań

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Bank Handlowy, Ryszard Adamiak, Christianapol sp. z o. o.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(1) and (2)(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) to be construed as meaning that the term ‘closure of insolvency proceedings’ used in that provision should be interpreted autonomously, independently of the rules applicable in the legal systems of the individual Member States, or is it solely for the national law of the State of the opening of proceedings to decide when closure of insolvency proceedings occurs?

               2.

               Is Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings to be interpreted as meaning that the national court dealing with an application for the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings may never examine the insolvency of a debtor in respect of whom main insolvency proceedings have been opened in another State, or rather that the national court may in certain situations examine the existence of the debtor’s insolvency — particularly where the main proceedings are protective proceedings in which the court has established that the debtor is not insolvent (French sauvegarde proceedings)?

               3.

               Does interpretation of Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings permit secondary insolvency proceedings, the nature of which is specified in the second sentence of Article 3(3) of the regulation, to be opened in the Member State in which the whole of the assets of the insolvent person are situated, when the main proceedings, which are subject to automatic recognition, are of a protective nature (French sauvegarde proceedings), a scheme of payment has been accepted and confirmed in those proceedings, that scheme is being implemented by the debtor and the court has forbidden the disposal of the debtor’s assets?

      (1)  OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 1.