title: Reference for preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen by judgment of that court of 17 September 1997 in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Wim Westenborg (Case C-335/97)

text:
C 357/ 16                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 11 . 97
2 . Is there a breach of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Article 11 ( 2 ) of Directive 92/85/EEC and clause 2 ( 6 )
      of the Annex to Directive 96/34/EC (2) ( which is yet to
      be transposed ) if an employer wholly excludes women                — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to refund :
      who are on parenting leave (Erziehungsurlaub) at the
      time of payment of the Christmas bonus from receipt                      — Lit 455 200 000, together with Lit 650 885 399 by
      of the bonus and does not take into account work
                                                                                way of interest, in respect of the financing of
      performed and periods completed for the protection                           contract 147,
      of mothers (in which they were prohibited from
      working)?
                                                                               — Lit 158 400 000, together with Lit 243 672 000 by
                                                                                way of interest, in respect of the financing of
                                                                                contract 149 ,
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative :
                                                                               that is to say, the total §um of Lit 1 508 157 399
                                                                               together with further interest as from 31 August 1997
      Is there a breach of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                       until the day on which repayment is fully effected,
      Article 11 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 92/85/EEC and clause 2               following rescission of the two contracts referred to
       ( 6 ) of the Annex to Directive 96/34/EC if, when                       above,
      awarding a Christmas bonus to a woman who is on
      parenting leave, an employer takes into account the
      following periods by way of pro rata reduction:                     — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the
                                                                               Commission Lit 50 000 000 by way of damages or
                                                                               such sum as may be considered due compensation for
      — periods of parenting leave;                                            the damage suffered by reason of its faillure to
                                                                               perform its obligations,
      — periods for the protection of mothers ( in which she              — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the
             was prohibited from working)?                                     costs .
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Arbeitsgericht requests the Court of Justice to give a
ruling, in the context of the questions referred by it, also
on the scope of clause 2 ( 6 ) of the Annex to Directive 96/              The object of this action, which is based on an arbitration
34/EC .                                                                   clause, is to recover financial assistance which the
                                                                          Commission granted the defendant so that it could
                                                                          construct ( a ) a 225 kW combined wind/diesel energy
(') OJ L 348 , 28 . 11 . 1992, p. 1 .                                     system with optimum power distribution ( contract No WE/
( 2 ) OJ L 145 , 19 . 6 . 1996 , p. 4 .
                                                                          147-85 ) and ( b ) a hydroelectric generator plant combined
                                                                          with a wind/diesel energy system ( contract No HY/149
                                                                          85 ). The Commission decided to withdraw from the
                                                                          contracts, drawn up between the parties in accordance
                                                                          with Italian law, on account of the defendant's failure to
                                                                          perform its obligations thereunder.
Action brought on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Comune di
                          Montorio al Vomano
                             ( Case C-334/97)
                                                                          Reference for preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te Ant
                               ( 97/C 357/28 )                            werpen by judgment of that court of 17 September 1997
                                                                          in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Wim
                                                                                Westenborg
                                                                                Case C-335 /97 )
An action against the Comune di Montorio al Vomano
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                            ( 97/C 357/29
Communities on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Paolo
Stancanelli of its Legal Service, assisted by Alberto Dal                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ferro, Avvocato, acting as Agents, with an address for                    European Communities by judgment of the Arbeidshof
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                 (Higher Labour Court), Antwerp, of 17 September 1997,
Cruz, Wagner Centre, rue Alcide de Gasperi .                              received at the Court Registry on 26 September 1997, for
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 357/ 17
a preliminary ruling in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensi                  nen and the case-law of the Court of Justice, is it
oenen against Wim Westenborg in the following terms:                        compatible with Community law, more particularly
                                                                            Articles 5 , 48 and 51 of the Treaty, to take the view
                                                                             that the national courts may not disapply express,
                                                                             binding provisions of national law in order to
1 . Requests the Court of Justice of the European                            eliminate the adverse effects :
     Communities to give a preliminary ruling on
     the following questions, on the basis of the
     aforementioned provisions and any other provisions                     — of the application of the rUle of national law to
     which it may consider to apply in this case:                                migrant workers who have exercised their right to
                                                                                free movement,
     Is it compatible with Community law — in particular                    — of the lack of coordination between social security
                                                                                schemes of different Member States ?
     Articles 5, 48 and 51 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957
     establishing the European Economic Community and,
     more specifically, the principles of free movement of
     workers and cooperation in good faith between the
     competent authorities — to take the view that the
     relevant Belgian legislation may not be disapplied by a
     national court which concludes that an applicable
                                                                        Action brought on 26 September 1997 by the Commission
     national provision requiring a migrant worker's
     pension to be reduced — such as Article 3 ( 1 ) of the             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     Belgian Law of 20 July 1990 which requires a lower                                        ( Case C-336/97 )
     pension to be awarded ( at the 60% rate for a single
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/30 )
     person and not the 75 % household rate ) if the
     migrant worker's spouse receives a pension or benefit
     equivalent thereto under the legislation of a foreign
     country — and considers that it is impossible to                   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
     interpret that national rule in such a way as to                   the Court of Justice on 26 September 1997 by the
     eliminate the unforeseen adverse effects of the lack of            Commission of the European Communities, represented
     coordination between social security schemes in the                by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, assisted by
     interests of free movement of workers or holds that                Claudio Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, acting as Agents, with
     the application of that rule in the case in point                  an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     constitutes an obstacle to free movement of workers ?              Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . Requests the Court of Justice of the European
     Communities to give an interpretation of the scope of
                                                                        — declare that :
     its judgment in Case C-165/91 Van Munster v. Rijks
     dienst voor Pensioenen in the light of those rules of
     European law:                                                           — by not ensuring that emergency plans are drawn
                                                                                up for action outside establishments whose
                                                                                industrial activity has been notified in accordance
      ( a ) Does the reasoning set out in paragraph 21 to 31                     with Article 5 of Directive 82/501 /EEC ('), in
            of that judgment in respect of question 2 relate to                  breach of the third indent of Article 7 ( 1 ) of that
            what may be described as 'unforeseen adverse                         Directive ,
            effects of the lack of coordination between social
            security schemes'?                                               — and by not organizing inspections or other
                                                                                measures of control proper to the type of activity
                                                                                concerned, in breach of Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive
      ( b ) In the light of paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of that                      82/501/EEC,
            judgment, is point 2 of the operative part of that
            judgment to be interpreted as meaning that, where
            it is impossible to interpret an applicable provision       — the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
            of national law in such a way as to eliminate the                 under the EC Treaty,
            adverse effects of its application in a specific
            situation on free movement of workers, the
            national court must apply that rule in full, or that        — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
            the national court must disapply that rule of
            national law ?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 3 . In the light of point 2 of the operative part of the               Article 7 ( 1 ) of the Directive provides that the Member
      judgment in Van Munster v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioe               States are to set up or appoint the competent authorities


title: Case C-292/07: Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/18

         Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-292/07)
   (2007/C 211/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80 of that directive;
               In the alternative:

                           declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/18/EC expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-312/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Paris (France)) — JVC France SAS v Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières) (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Camcorders — Explanatory notes — Body of legal rules)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/4

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Paris (France)) — JVC France SAS v Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)
   (Case C-312/07) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Camcorders - Explanatory notes - Body of legal rules)
   (2008/C 183/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal d'instance de Paris
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: JVC France SAS

      Defendant: Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance de Paris (France) — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), in the version applicable to the facts in the main proceedings — Subheadings 8525 40 91 (video camera recorders: Only able to record sound and images taken by the television camera) and 8525 40 99 (other) — Classification of camcorders which, when imported, are unable to record external video sound signals (DV out function) but the video interface of which can subsequently be activated through the use of software or an enabler (DV in/out), without the manufacturer and the seller having mentioned or endorsed that possibility — Whether it is possible to effect a change in Community practice with regard to tariff classification by way of subsequent retroactive amendments to the explanatory notes on the Combined Nomenclature rather than by means of the adoption of a regulation on tariff classification that would be applicable only in the future
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A camcorder may be classified under subheading 8525 40 99 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 only if the function for recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated camera or microphone is active at the time of customs clearance or if, even though the manufacturer did not intend to promote that characteristic, that function may be activated subsequently by simple modification of the apparatus by a user who does not have special skills, without modification of the camcorder's hardware. Where the camcorder is activated subsequently, it is also necessary, first, that, once activated, it functions in a manner similar to that of another camcorder whose function for recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated camera or microphone is active at the time of customs clearance and, second, that it functions independently. The existence of those conditions must be capable of being ascertained at the time of customs clearance. It is for the national court to establish whether those conditions are fulfilled. If those conditions are not fulfilled the camcorder must be classified under subheading 8525 40 91 of the Combined Nomenclature.

               2.

               The explanatory notes to that Combined Nomenclature relating to subheading 8525 40 99, published on 6 July 2001 and 23 October 2002, are interpretative in character and do not have legally binding force. They are in accordance with the wording of the Combined Nomenclature and do not alter its scope. It follows that the adoption of a new classification regulation was not necessary.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-413/97)

text:
C 41/12                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.2.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                                     (Case C-413/97)
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992                                              (98/C 41/24)
     on the introduction of measures to encourage
     improvements in the safety and health at work of
     pregnant workers and workers who have recently                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     given birth or are breastfeeding (1), the Grand Duchy             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations                Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of
     under that Directive;                                             the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin,
                                                                       of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     costs.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                            or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                      return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the
those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2), the time-limit for                  territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform
transposition expired on 19 October 1994.                                   the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of
                                                                            Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            Article 18 of that Directive;
(1) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.
(2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
                                                                       2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                            costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
Circondariale di Bologna by order of that court of                     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
29 November 1997 in the case of E.D. Srl against Italo                 Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
                            Fenocchio                                  transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
                                                                       law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
                        (Case C-412/97)                                so. In the present case, that period expired on
                                                                       15 December 1993 without the Grand Duchy of
                          (98/C 41/23)
                                                                       Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
                                                                       provisions (2).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
European Communities by order of the Pretura                           (2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
Circondariale       (Magistrates       Court),   Bologna,     of
29 November 1997, received at the Court Registry on
5 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
E.D. Srl against Italo Fenocchio on the following question:
                                                                       Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
Must the prohibition of issuing an ingiunzione (summary                of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
order) where the same is to be served outside the Republic                                            Spain
or territories subject to Italian sovereignty Ð that
prohibition being laid down by the last paragraph of                                           (Case C-414/97)
Article 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure Ð be regarded                                         (98/C 41/25)
as a restriction or equivalent measure capable of
hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, the
free movement of goods, services and capital guaranteed                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
by Articles 34, 59 and 73b of the Treaty of Rome?                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                       on 15 December 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Miguel Díaz-
                                                                       Llanos La Roche, Legal Adviser, and Carlos Gómez de la


title: Case T-386/03: Action brought on 24 November 2003 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
7.2.2004               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 35/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         24 November 2003 by Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn (Germ-
—     annul the contested decision of the Second Board of                any), represented by D. Marschollek, lawyer. Client Logic
      Appeal of 9 September 2003 (Case R 174/2002-2);                    GmbH & Co. KG, Oberhausen (Germany), was also a party to
                                                                         the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
—     order the Office to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-            Biker Miles Motorrad Handels-              —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
munity trade mark:            und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH                    7 January 2003, notified on 26 September 2003, (Case
                                                                               R 80/2001-4);
Community trade mark          Coloured word/figurative mark
sought:                       ‘BIKER MILES’ for goods in Class-
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                              es 9 (replacement parts and
                              accessories for two-wheeled
                              vehicles etc.), 12 (motorcycles
                              etc.) and 25 (equipment and cloth-
                              ing for the riders of two-wheeled
                              vehicles etc.) — Application               Pleas in law and main arguments
                              No 1 237 734.
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
                                                                         Applicant for Com-            The applicant.
sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                         munity trade mark:
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in         The Community trade mark ‘MIL-             Community trade mark          Word mark ‘DTel’ for goods and
opposition.                   ES’ for goods in Class 25.                 sought:                       services in Classes 9 (electric
                                                                                apparatus etc.), 37 (construction
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal to register the mark                                             etc.), 38 (telecommunications
sition Division:              sought.                                                                  etc.) and 42 (computer program-
                                                                                ming services etc.) — Application
Decision of the Board of      The appeal was granted and the                                           No 1 176 639.
Appeal:                       opposition rejected.
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of         Proprietor of mark or         Client Logic GmbH & Co. KG.
                              Regulation No 40/94 (1).                   sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                         sition proceedings:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                           Mark or sign cited in         The national word mark ‘TETEL’
                                                                         opposition.                   for goods and services in Class-
                                                                                es 9, 37, 38 and 42.
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition.
                                                                         sition Division:
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by Deutsche
Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                   Decision of the Board of      Partial refusal of the application
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                     Appeal:                       to register, in respect of goods
                                                                                and services in Class 38. Dismissal
                         (Case T-386/03)                                                               of the remainder of the appeal.
                          (2004/C 35/21)                                 Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and
                                                                                (b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1).
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: German)                               (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the


24.2.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 61/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of Case C-67/00 (1)
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                               (2001/C 61/24)
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996              By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
      concerning integrated pollution prevention and con-               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
      trol (1) or, in any event, to inform the Commission               from the register of Case C-67/00: Commission of the
      thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with           European Communities v Ireland.
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                        (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-68/00 (1)
in Case C-26/01; the time-limit for transposition expired on
30 October 1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/25)
(1) OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26.                                      By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-68/00: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-505/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 61/23)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-70/00 (1)
By order of 6 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                     (2001/C 61/26)
from the register of Case C-505/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                              By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-70/00: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                               European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case C-275/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Right of free movement and residence — National of a Member State — Studies pursued in another Member State — Education or training grant — Conditions — Duration of course greater than or equal to two years — Obtaining a vocational qualification)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln
   (Case C-275/12) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Right of free movement and residence - National of a Member State - Studies pursued in another Member State - Education or training grant - Conditions - Duration of course greater than or equal to two years - Obtaining a vocational qualification)
   2013/C 367/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Samantha Elrick

      Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Entitlement to a ‘BAföG’ education or training grant — Member State legislation providing for such entitlement in respect of a certain course, of one year’s duration, pursued in that Member State, but excluding such entitlement for a comparable course pursued in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that makes the award of an education or training grant, to a national resident in that Member State, for a course pursued in another Member State, subject to the requirement that the course in question lead to a vocational qualification equivalent to that provided by a vocational school in the State awarding the grant, following a course of at least two years’ duration, whereas an education or training grant would have been awarded if the national had chosen to undertake, in the State awarding the grant, a course equivalent to that which she wished to pursue in another Member State, and which is of less than two years’ duration.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case F-92/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Corman v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Corman v Commission
   (Case F-92/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/67)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16/11/2013, p. 32.


title: Case C-321/13: Action brought on 11 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/8

         Action brought on 11 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-321/13)
   (2013/C 226/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and N. Yerrell, acting as agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2010/61/EU of 2 September 2010 adapting for the first time the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous goods to scientific and technical progress (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Commission Directive 2010/61/EU of 2 September 2010 expired on 30 June 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 233, p. 27.


title: Case T-247/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (STICK MiniMINI Beretta) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark STICK MiniMINI Beretta — Earlier Community word mark MINI WINI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (STICK MiniMINI Beretta)
   (Case T-247/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark STICK MiniMINI Beretta - Earlier Community word mark MINI WINI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96))
   (2016/C 106/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Barzanò, Italy) (represented by: G. Ghisletti, F. Braga and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2014 (Case R 1159/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 February 2014 (Case R 1159/2013-4) inasmuch as it rejects the submissions made by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG seeking a decision altering the decision of the Opposition Division in respect of the services in Class 43;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 September 1998 in Case T-154/96: Christiane Chvatal and Others v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Termination of service as a result of the accession of new Member States - Act adversely affecting an official - Objection of illegality - Legality of Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 - Equal treatment - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Prior consultation of the institutions and of the Staff Regulations Committee)

text:
21.11.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 358/13
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            3. Orders the Chambre Syndicale de l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie
                                                                          et de l'EÂlectrochimie and the Commission to bear their
                     of 15 October 1998                                   own costs.
     in Case T-2/95: Industrie des Poudres SpheÂriques v.
              Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 54, 4.3.1995.
(Anti-dumping measures Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88
Ð Calcium metal Ð Resumption of an anti-dumping
investigation Ð Right to a fair hearing Ð Like product Ð
Damage Ð Community interest Ð Statement of reasons
Ð Misuse of powers Ð Unenforceability of an anti-
           dumping regulation against an importer)
                        (98/C 358/26)
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 30 September 1998
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     in Case T-154/96: Christiane Chvatal and Others v. Court
                                                                               of Justice of the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Termination of service as a result of the
In Case T-2/95: Industrie des Poudres SpheÂriques,                   accession of new Member States Ð Act adversely affecting
established in Annemasse (France), represented by Chantal            an official Ð Objection of illegality Ð Legality of
MomeÁge, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in            Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 Ð Equal
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val                    treatment Ð Infringement of essential procedural
Sainte-Croix, against Council of the European Union                  requirements Ð Prior consultation of the institutions and
(Agents: originally Ramón Torrent and Jorge Monteiro,                              of the Staff Regulations Committee)
then Mr Torrent and Yves Cretien, and subsequently Mr
Torrent, Antonio Tanca and Philip Bentley), supported by                                       (98/C 358/27)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Nicholas      Khan     and      Xavier     Lewis),    PeÂchiney
EÂlectromeÂtallurgie, established in Courbevoie (France),
and Chambre Syndicale de l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie et de
l'EÂlectrochimie, established in Paris, represented originally                        (Language of the case: French)
by Jacques-Philippe Gunther and Hubert de Broca, of the
Paris Bar, and subsequently by Mr Gunther alone, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch and Wolter, 11 rue Goethe Ð application for                   In Case T-154/96: Christiane Chvatal and Others, officials
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2557/94 of                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
19 October 1994 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty              represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and,
on imports of calcium metal originating in the People's              initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Republic of China and Russia (OJ L 270, 21.10.1994,                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
p. 27) and, in the alternative, for a declaration that that          Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Court of
regulation is unenforceable against the applicant Ð the              Justice of the European Communities (Agent: Timothy
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended                     Millett), supported by Council of the European Union
Composition), composed of: J. Azizi, President, B.                   (Agents: Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) and
Vesterdorf, R. García-Valdecasas, R. M. Moura Ramos                  Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and
and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,           Johannes Steven van den Oosterkamp) Ð application for
and A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a           annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice
judgment on 15 October 1998, in which it:                            rejecting the applicants' requests that their names be
                                                                     entered on the list of persons having manifested their
                                                                     interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their
                                                                     service as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and
1. Dismisses the application;                                        Sweden, and for a declaration that Council Regulation
                                                                     (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995
                                                                     introducing special measures to terminate the service of
                                                                     officials of the European Communities as a result of the
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those              accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ L 280,
     of the Council, including those of the application for          23.11.1995, p. 1) is unlawful inasmuch as it applies only
     the adoption of interim measures, and the costs of the          to officials of the European Parliament Ð the Court of
     intervener PeÂchiney EÂlectromeÂtallurgie;                      First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.11.98
President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                                of 30 September 1998
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 1998, in
which it:                                                           in Case T-13/97: Antoinette Losch v. Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
1. Annuls the decisions of the Court of Justice addressed:          (Officials Ð Termination of service as a result of the
                                                                    accession of new Member States Ð Act adversely affecting
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Christiane Chvatal,                    an official Ð Objection of illegality Ð Legality of
                                                                    Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 Ð Equal
                                                                    treatment Ð Infringement of essential procedural
    Ð on 24 April 1996 to Jean-Yves Delaval,                        requirements Ð Prior consultation of the institutions and
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations Committee)
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Jean Demaeght,                                                  (98/C 358/28)
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Giovanna Dragoni,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to John Hambly,
    Ð on 24 April 1996 to Marc Kemmerling-Laleure,                  In Case T-13/97: Antoinette Losch, an official of the
                                                                    Court of Justice of the European Communities,
                                                                    represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and,
    Ð on 11 March 1996 to Kirsten Lammar,                           initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to TheÂo Lippert,                         Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities (Agent: Timothy
                                                                    Millett), supported by Council of the European Union
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Angus Mackay,                          (Agents: Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) and
                                                                    Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Kaj éstergaard,                        Johannes Steven van den Oosterkamp) Ð application for
                                                                    annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    22 July 1996 rejecting the applicants' requests that her
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Maureen Russell,                       name be entered on the list of persons having manifested
                                                                    their interest in being the subject of a decision terminating
    Ð on 11 March 1996 to Ulrike Sinter,                            their service as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland
                                                                    and Sweden, and for a declaration that Council
                                                                    Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 of
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Aristides Vlachos,                     17 November 1995 introducing special measures to
                                                                    terminate the service of officials of the European
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Hans Gerhard Weller,                   Communities as a result of the accession of Austria,
                                                                    Finland and Sweden (OJ L 280, 23.11.1995, p. 1) is
                                                                    unlawful inasmuch as it applies only to officials of the
    rejecting their requests that their names be entered on         European Parliament Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth
    the list of persons having manifested their interest in         Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R.
    being the subject of a decision terminating their               García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor,
    service, as provided for by Council Regulation (EC,             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995                   judgment on 30 September 1998, in which it:
    introducing special measures to terminate the service
    of officials of the European Communities as a result of
    the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden;                   1. Annuls the decision of the Court of Justice of 22 July
                                                                         1996 rejecting the request made by Antoinette Losch
                                                                         on 16 July 1996 that her name be entered on the list
2. Orders the Court of Justice to bear its own costs and
                                                                         of persons having manifested their interest in being the
    to pay the costs of the applicants;
                                                                         subject of a decision terminating their service, as
                                                                         provided for by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom,
                                                                         ECSC) No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995 introducing
3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the
                                                                         special measures to terminate the service of officials of
    Council of the European Union to bear their own
                                                                         the European Communities as a result of the accession
    costs.
                                                                         of Austria, Finland and Sweden;
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                    2. Orders the Court of Justice to bear its own costs and
                                                                         to pay the costs of the applicants;


title: Case T-594/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/59

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-594/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/76)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-87/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Genova v Eliana Fasciolo (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 200/27
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                               (Third Chamber)
                       of 13 December 2000
                                                                                of 15 December 2000
in Case C-44/00 P: Société de distribution mécanique et
d’automobiles SA (Sodima) v Commission of the Euro-                         in Case C-87/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        pean Communities (1)                                the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Genova v Eliana
                                                                                Fasciolo (1)
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Complaint
— Action for failure to act, for annulment, and for compen-
                                                                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
sation — Inadmissibility — Appeal in part manifestly                             identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
        inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
                           (2001/C 200/47)                                                               (2001/C 200/48)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-44/00 P: Société de distribution mécanique et
d’automobiles SA (Sodima), a company being wound up by                      In Case C-87/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
court order, having its registered office in Istres, France,                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
represented by J.C. Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address             (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue              before that court between Questore di Genova and Eliana
Béatrix de Bourbon — Appeal against the judgment of the                     Fasciolo on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First                  Treaty on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third
Chamber) of 13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-190/95                       Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-
and T-45/96 Sodima v Commission [1999] ECR II-3617,                         er, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the             Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                   order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as
(Agents: G. Marenco and F. Siredey-Garnier) — The Court                     follows:
(Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has made an order on 13 December 2000, the operative part                   The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
of which is as follows:                                                     preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
                                                                            reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
                                                                            if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                              to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
                                                                            which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
2.    Société de distribution mécanique et d’automobiles SA (Sodima)        objectives.
      is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Removal from the register of C-314/94

text:
No C 74/ 18             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 3 . 97
          Removal from the register of C-290/96 ( ')                              Removal from the register of C-3 14/94 (')
                               97/C 74/36 )                                                           ( 97/C 74/37)
                                                                         By order of 18 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 27 November 1996 the President of the Court                  of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                  removal from the register of Case C-3 14/94 ( reference for
removal from the register of Case C-290/96 : Commission                  a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia
of the European Communities v. Ireland.                                 del Pais Vasco ( Sala de lo Social )): Maria Luisa Alonso
                                                                        Bernardez ( widow of Edelmiro Nunez Santos ) v. Instituto
 (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
                                                                        la Seguridad Social .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 12 December 1996                                                      of 12 December 1996
in Case T-358/94: Compagnie Nationale Air France v.                     in Case T-130/95 : X v. Commission of the European
        Commission of the European Communities H                                                  Communities H
(State aid — Air transport — Airline company in a critical              (Officials   —     Promotion         —    Consideration of     the
                        financial situation)                            candidates ' comparative merits — Staff report — Delay in
                                                                          drawing it up — Action for annulment and for damages)
                             ( 97/C 74/38 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/39 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-358/94 : Compagnie Nationale Air France,
having its registered office in Paris, represented by                   In Case T-130/95 : X, an official of the Commission of the
Dominique Borde and Andre Moquet, of the Bars of Paris                  European Communities, represented by Carlo Revoldini,
and Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 of the Luxembourg Bar, 180 route de Longwy, with an
at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt,                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the
against Commission of the European Communities                          latter, against Commission of the European Communities
( Agents: Ben Smulders and Ami Barav) — application for                 ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto dal Ferro ) —
annulment of Commission Decision 94/662/EC of 27 July                   application for annulment of the decision of the
1994 concerning the subscription by CDC-Participations                  Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4
to bonds issued by Air France ( OJ No L 258 , 6 . 10 . 1994,            under the 1994 promotion procedure and for damages —
p. 26 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,                the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
Extended Composition ), composed of: H. Kirschner,                      B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. Briet and A. Potocki,
President, B. Vesterdorf,              C. W.       Bellamy, A.         Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio                      Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996, the
Gonzalez, Administrator, gave a judgment on 12 December                 operative part of which is as follows:
1996, the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed.
1 . The application is dismissed.
                                                                       2 . The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and
2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                               those of the applicant.
H OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                         (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case T-304/16: Action brought on 15 June 2016 — bet365 Group v EUIPO — Hansen (BET365)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/25

         Action brought on 15 June 2016 — bet365 Group v EUIPO — Hansen (BET365)
   (Case T-304/16)
   (2016/C 296/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: bet365 Group Limited (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC (Queen's Counsel), R. Black and J. Bickle, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert Hansen (München, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘BET365’

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 3243/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-339/14: Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Kurchenko v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/36

         Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Kurchenko v Council
   (Case T-339/14)
   2014/C 253/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko (Chuhuiv, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, M. Drury and A. Swan, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to identify a proper legal base. Article 29 TEU was not a proper legal base for the decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined the rule of law or human rights in Ukraine (within the meaning of Articles 21(2) and 23 TEU). As the decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the Regulation. At the time that the restrictive measures were imposed, there was no charge or claim against the applicant in any jurisdiction that his activities threatened to undermine the rule of law, or violated any human rights in Ukraine.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person has been ‘identified as responsible’ for misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, or is a person associated with anyone who has been so identified. The only reason given for the listing of the applicant was that he was said to be subject to ‘investigation’ in Ukraine for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine. There is therefore not even an allegation (applying the Court's reasoning in Case T-256/11 Ezz) that the applicant was a person responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, or was associated with a person properly so identified.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant's rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has at no stage been given particularised information as to the ‘investigation’ that is said to justify his inclusion in the list, still less ‘serious and credible’ or ‘concrete’ evidence to that effect. Despite requests, the Council has failed to provide this information.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. These reasons given were insufficiently detailed and precise. No detail has been provided as to the nature of the conduct of the applicant that has allegedly ‘involved’ him in ‘crimes’, or how such alleged ‘involvement in crimes’ is in any way connected with both ‘the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds’ and ‘their illegal transfer outside Ukraine’. No detail is provided as to the ‘investigation’, the entity allegedly carrying it out, its nature, or the date upon which it is supposed to have begun.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were not ‘provided for by law’; they were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council; they are not restricted to any specific property which is said to represent misappropriated state funds or even limited to the amount of funds alleged to have been misappropriated.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council relied on materially inaccurate facts. Contrary to the sole reason for his inclusion, there is no information or evidence available that the applicant was in fact subject to ‘investigation’ in Ukraine of the type specified in the Decision and Regulation.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to ensure the relevance and validity of the evidence underlying the listing of the applicant: it failed to consider whether the current Acting General Prosecutor of Ukraine had authority under the Constitution of Ukraine to commence any investigation against the applicant and the Council failed to appreciate that the applicant was not in fact subject to the alleged ‘investigation’.


title: Case C-291/01 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2001 by Smanor SA and Monique and Hubert Ségaud against the order made on 4 July 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-123/01 between the parties bringing the present appeal and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
Appeal brought on 6 June 2001 by G. Ojha against the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
judgment delivered on 6 arch 2001 by the First Chamber                für Zivilrechtsachen Vienna by order of that court of
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-               12 October 2001 in the case of Prof. Monika Herbstrith v
ties in Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission of the European                                      Republic of Austria
                         Communities
                                                                                (Case C-430/01)
                       (Case C-284/01 P)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/31)
                        (2002/C 109/29)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
                                                                      Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna Higher Civil Court) of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001              12 October 2001 which was received at the Court Registry on
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the            6 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Prof.
European Communities in Case T-77/99 (1)Ojha v Commission             Monika Herbstrith v Republic of Austria on the following
of the European Communities was brought before the Court              questions:
of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2001 by
G. Ojha. By order of 22 November 2001 the Court of Justice            1.    Did the conduct described above, viz. the failure to
(First Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Ojha to                 appoint a candidate despite her professional qualifi-
bear his own costs.                                                         cations, infringe a provision of directly applicable Com-
                                                                            munity law and if so, which provision?
                                                                      2.    If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2002, p. 16.
                                                                            Does the infringed provision of directly applicable Com-
                                                                            munity law give the plaintiff in the original proceedings a
                                                                            legal right?
                                                                      3.    If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:
                                                                            Does the request for a preliminary ruling provide the
                                                                            European Court of Justice with all the information it needs
                                                                            to determine whether in the circumstances described as
Appeal brought on 23 July 2001 by Smanor SA and                             to the original proceedings the national body clearly and
Monique and Hubert Ségaud against the order made on                         significantly exceeded its discretionary powers, or does it
4 July 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First                      leave it to the Austrian court requesting the preliminary
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-123/01                       ruling to answer this question?
between the parties bringing the present appeal and the
        Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case C-291/01 P)
                        (2002/C 109/30)                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                      richt Frankfurt am Main by order of 12 November 2001
                                                                      in the case of Hilde Schönheit against the City of Frankfurt
                                                                                am Main
An appeal against the order made on 4 July 2001 by the First                                    (Case C-4/02)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-123/01 between the parties bringing
the present appeal and the Commission of the European                                         (2002/C 109/32)
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 23 July 2001 by Smanor SA and
Monique and Hubert Ségaud. By order of 22 November 2001
the Court of Justice (First Chamber) dismissed the appeal and         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ordered each of the applicants to bear their own costs.               European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                      (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main of 12 November
                                                                      2001, received at the Court Registry on 9 January 2002, for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Hilde Schönheit against the
                                                                      City of Frankfurt am Main on the following questions:


title: Case C-652/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Furkan Tekdemir, legally represented by Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — ‘Standstill’ clause — Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Existence of an overriding reason in the public interest justifying new restrictions — Efficient management of migration flows — Requirement for nationals of third countries under 16 years old to hold a residence permit — Proportionality)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Furkan Tekdemir, legally represented by Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße
   (Case C-652/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - ‘Standstill’ clause - Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Existence of an overriding reason in the public interest justifying new restrictions - Efficient management of migration flows - Requirement for nationals of third countries under 16 years old to hold a residence permit - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 161/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Furkan Tekdemir, legally represented by Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir

      Defendant: Kreis Bergstraße

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of efficient management of migration flows may constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a national measure, introduced after the entry into force of that decision in the Member State in question, requiring nationals of third countries under the age of 16 years old to hold a residence permit in order to enter and reside in that Member State.
   Such a measure is not, however, proportionate to the objective pursued where the procedure for its implementation as regards child nationals of third countries born in the Member State in question and one of whose parents is a Turkish worker lawfully residing in that Member State, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, goes beyond what is necessary for attaining that objective.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case T-52/08 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06, Carpi Badía v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/38

         Appeal brought on 5 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06, Carpi Badía v Commission

   (Case T-52/08 P)
   (2008/C 92/76)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: José María Carpi Badía (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06 Carpi Badía v Commission and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06 Carpi Badía v Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled its decision allocating to the applicant at first instance a number of priority points insufficient for him to be promoted in promotion year 2005 and its decision finalising the list of officials promoted during that promotion year inasmuch as it does not include the applicant's name.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in law seeking annulment identical to those raised in Case T-51/08 P Commission v Dittert.


title: Case C-197/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Hasselt (Belgium) lodged on  3 May 2006  — Confederatie van Immobilien-Beroepen van Belgie VZW and het Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v Willem Van Leuken

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Hasselt (Belgium) lodged on 3 May 2006 — Confederatie van Immobilien-Beroepen van Belgie VZW and het Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v Willem Van Leuken
   (Case C-197/06)
   (2006/C 165/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Hasselt (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Confederatie van Immobilien-Beroepen van Belgie VZW and het Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars

      Defendant: Willem Van Leuken
   Question(s) referred

               (a)

               Must Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a real estate agent who is established in the Netherlands and organises agency activities in Belgium in respect of real property is no longer obliged to comply with the conditions laid down by the Belgian legislature pursuant to the aforementioned directive (Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 6 September 1993, Article 3 of the Framework Law of 1 March 1976) in the case where he has concluded a cooperation agreement with a real estate agent who is established in Belgium and is certified by the Belgian Professional Association of Real Estate Agents (BIV) and organises his activities in such a way that (i) consumers may always have recourse to this real estate agent registered in Belgium for purposes of activities in Belgium and (ii) this collaboration is made clear in publicity, in particular through reference to the intermediary role played by this real estate agent certified in Belgium by the BIV in connection with activities carried out pursuant to Belgian law?;
               or
               Must Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48/EEC be interpreted as meaning that a real estate agent who is established in the Netherlands and organises agency activities in Belgium in respect of real property is in every case obliged to comply with the conditions laid down by the Belgian legislature pursuant to the aforementioned directive (Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 6 September 1993, Article 3 of the Framework Law of 1 March 1976), notwithstanding any cooperation agreement with a real estate agent who is certified in Belgium and provides intermediary services in regard to activities governed by Belgian law?

               (b)

               Should the Court of Justice take the view that Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a real estate agent who is established in the Netherlands and organises agency activities in Belgium in respect of real property is in every case obliged to comply with the conditions laid down by the Belgian legislature pursuant to the aforementioned directive (Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 6 September 1993, Article 3 of the Framework Law of 1 March 1976), notwithstanding any cooperation agreement with a real estate agent who is certified in Belgium and provides intermediary services in regard to activities governed by Belgian law, does it not then follow that that directive and the national provisions adopted to implement it are contrary to Article 49 EC setting out the principle of freedom to provide cross-border services inasmuch as, on the basis of the foregoing construction, that directive and the national provisions adopted to implement it protect the market for estate agency activity in respect of real property situate in Belgium, in a manner which is objectionable, artificial and lacking objective justification, against cooperation agreements entered into by independent real estate agents established in different Member States (Belgium and the Netherlands), at least one of whom (the Belgian real estate agent) satisfies the conditions laid down by the directive and the national provisions, with the result that the requirement that the Netherlands real estate agent must additionally also satisfy those conditions (as set out in the directive and the national provisions) is tantamount to indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality and constitutes at the very least a prohibited non-discriminatory restriction?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p.16).


title: Case C-396/15 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 May 2015 in Case T-145/14: adidas AG/Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/2

         Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 May 2015 in Case T-145/14: adidas AG/Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-396/15 P)
   (2016/C 118/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: adidas AG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   By order of 17 February 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-161/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/23

         Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)
   (Case T-161/16)
   (2016/C 222/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) (Alonte, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CMS ITALY’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 150 538

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 229/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision on the grounds that Article 8(5) EUTMR was not applied;

               —

               order EUIPO and Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(5), 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 19(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of the principles of legal security and sound administration.


title: Case T-723/16: Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (RE-CONzerø)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/32

         Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (RE-CONzerø)
   (Case T-723/16)
   (2016/C 462/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘RE-CONzerø’ — Application for registration No 13 031 661

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2374/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 13 031 661 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those goods already covered, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order for it to reverse its own decision by granting registration of the mark in accordance with the findings of the Court;

               —

               order the other party to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-42/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda — Slovakia) — Home Credit Slovakia, a.s. v Klára Bíróová (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer protection — Consumer credit — Article 1, Article 3(m), Article 10(1) and (2), Article 22(1) and Article 23 — Interpretation of the expressions ‘on paper’ and ‘on another durable medium’ — Contract referring to another document — Requirement for the agreement to be in ‘written form’ within the meaning of national law — Indication of information required by reference to objective criteria — Information to be included in a fixed-term credit agreement — Effect of failure to include mandatory information — Proportionality)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda — Slovakia) — Home Credit Slovakia, a.s. v Klára Bíróová
   (Case C-42/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Article 1, Article 3(m), Article 10(1) and (2), Article 22(1) and Article 23 - Interpretation of the expressions ‘on paper’ and ‘on another durable medium’ - Contract referring to another document - Requirement for the agreement to be in ‘written form’ within the meaning of national law - Indication of information required by reference to objective criteria - Information to be included in a fixed-term credit agreement - Effect of failure to include mandatory information - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 006/12)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Dunajská Streda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Home Credit Slovakia, a.s.

      Defendant: Klára Bíróová

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 3(m), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           a credit agreement need not necessarily be drawn up in a single document, but all the information referred to in Article 10(2) of the directive must be set out on paper or on another durable medium;

                           —

                           it does not preclude a Member State from providing in its national legislation, first, that a credit agreement falling within the scope of Directive 2008/48 which is drawn up on paper must be signed by the parties and, second, that the requirement that the agreement be signed applies to all the details of that agreement referred to in Article 10(2) of that directive.

               2.

               Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a credit agreement need not indicate the specific date on which every payment to be made by the consumer falls due, provided that the terms of the agreement allow the consumer to ascertain the dates of those payments without difficulty and with certainty.

               3.

               Article 10(2)(h) and (i) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a fixed-term credit agreement, providing for amortisation of the capital in consecutive instalments, need not state, in the form of an amortisation table, the part of each instalment that will be allocated to repayment of capital. Those provisions, read in conjunction with Article 22(1) of that directive, preclude a Member State from imposing such an obligation under national law.

               4.

               Article 23 of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from providing, under national law, that, where a credit agreement does not include all the information required under Article 10(2) of the directive, the agreement is deemed to be interest-free and free of charges, provided that the information covers matters which, if not included, may compromise the ability of the consumer to assess the extent of his liability.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case T-10/15 P: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Inquiry procedure — Report of the Committee of Inquiry — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/40

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-10/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Inquiry procedure - Report of the Committee of Inquiry - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint))
   (2015/C 381/48)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and E. Raimond, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 November in De Nicola v EIB (F-52/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:243), and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.