title: Judgment of the Court of 7 November 2000 in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conservation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and social considerations — Severn Estuary)

text:
C 28/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.1.2001
P. Steinmetz, assisted by J. Welter) v European Parliament                 (Federal Court of Justice), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
(Agents: originally represented by C. Pennera, and A. Baas, and            the proceedings pending before that court between Schutzver-
subsequently by C. Pennera and J. Sant’Anna) and Council of                band gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV and Warsteiner
the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi and F. Anton),                     Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG — on the interpret-
supported by Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: M. López-Monı́s                    ation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
Gallego, Abogado del Estado) by Kingdom of the Netherlands                 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
(Agent: M.A. Fierstra) by United Kingdom of Great Britain and              designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
Northern Ireland (Agents: J.E. Collins and D. Anderson, and by             (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiro                  guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and B. Mongin, — application for a annulment of Directive                  and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O. Edward,
98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   J.-R Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of               and F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than                   H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77,                a judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:
p. 36) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P.              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,                protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von                   agricultural products and foodstuffs does not preclude the application
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 of national legislation which prohibits the potentially misleading use
judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it:                                  of a geographical indication of source in the case of which there is no
                                                                           link between the characteristics of the product and its geographical
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           provenance.
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
      the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
      the Commission of the European Communities to bear their
      own costs.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            of 7 November 2000
                       of 7 November 2000
                                                                           in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-312/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  the Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the
the Bundesgerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen Unwesen                        High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen
in der Wirtschaft eV v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer                     v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
                        GmbH & Co. KG (1)                                                            the Regions (1)
(Protection of geographical indications and designations of                (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Scope —                             and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries
Directive 79/112/EEC — National rules prohibiting the                      of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conser-
potentially misleading use of ‘simple’ geographical indi-                  vation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and
                         cations of source)                                            social considerations — Severn Estuary)
                          (2001/C 28/03)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/04)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-371/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-312/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Queen’s Bench
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichtshof              Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 28/3
England and Wales, (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling             of England and Wales (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Queen and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport               The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
and the Regions, ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd,                   ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom — on the interpretation
interveners: World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) and                      of Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
Avon Wildlife Trust — on the interpretation of Articles 2(3)              25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
and 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on                 concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and                which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security
flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:                     or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),             p. 117) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O.                  M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber, acting as President
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen,            of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporte-
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                  ur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                   2000, in which it has ruled:
On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, a Member State may not take account
of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local
characteristics, as mentioned in Article 2(3) of that directive, when     Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to      1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community       movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
importance.                                                               grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be
                                                                          interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted by the authorities of
                                                                          a Member State refusing a Community national, not in possession of
                                                                          a residence permit, leave to enter its territory cannot be classified as a
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                               ‘decision concerning entry’ within the meaning of Article 8 thereof in
                                                                          a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings where the person
                                                                          concerned was temporarily admitted to the territory of that Member
                                                                          State, pending a decision following the enquiries required for the
                                                                          investigation of her case, and therefore resided for almost seven
                                                                          months in that territory before that decision was notified to her, since
                                                                          such a national must be entitled to the procedural safeguards referred
                                                                          to in Article 9 of Directive 64/221.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                          The time which elapsed after the competent authority’s decision as a
                       of 9 November 2000                                 result, first, of the suspensory effect of legal proceedings and, second,
                                                                          of the grant of permission to take up employment pending the
                                                                          determination of those proceedings, cannot have any bearing on the
in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 classification of that decision under Directive 64/221.
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                   Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (1)
(Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations —
Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admis-
                                                                          (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
sion — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8
                  and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)
                           (2001/C 28/05)
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-357/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal


title: Case T-502/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2007 — Lopparelli v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotions procedure — Award of promotion points)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2007 — Lopparelli v Commission
   (Case T-502/04) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotions procedure - Award of promotion points)
   (2007/C 199/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Stéphane Lopparelli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for the annulment of the decision awarding promotion points to the applicant in respect of the 2003 promotions procedure and of the decision not to enter his name on the list of officials promoted to grade A5 under that procedure.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-32/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Ella Valley Vineyards v OHIM — HFP (ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS — Earlier national and Community trade marks ELLE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of association — Link between the signs — Reputation — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Ella Valley Vineyards v OHIM — HFP (ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS)
   (Case T-32/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS - Earlier national and Community trade marks ELLE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of association - Link between the signs - Reputation - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2012/C 126/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: C. de Haas and O. Vanner, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: C. Moyou Joly, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2009 (Case R 1293/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) and Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2009 (Case R 1293/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case 306/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social n° 3 de Orense): Cristalina Salgado Alonso v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Social security of migrant workers — Articles 12 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC — Articles 45 and 48(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Old age and death — Unemployment — Minimum periods of insurance — Periods of insurance taken into account for calculating the amount of benefits but not for acquiring the right to those benefits — Periods of unemployment — Aggregation)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case 306/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Orense): Cristalina Salgado Alonso v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)

   (Social security of migrant workers - Articles 12 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC - Articles 45 and 48(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old age and death - Unemployment - Minimum periods of insurance - Periods of insurance taken into account for calculating the amount of benefits but not for acquiring the right to those benefits - Periods of unemployment - Aggregation)
   (2005/C 57/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case 306/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Orense (Spain), made by decision of 24 June 2003, received at the Court on 16 July 2003, in the proceedings between Cristalina Salgado Alonso and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:
   Articles 39 EC and 42 EC and Article 45 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that set out in the 28th Additional Provision of the General Social Security Law, which does not allow the competent authorities of a Member State to take into consideration, for the purposes of acquiring the right to a retirement pension under the national scheme, certain periods of insurance completed on the territory of that State by an unemployed worker during which contributions to old-age insurance were paid by the unemployment benefit agency, such periods being taken into consideration solely for the calculation of the amount of that pension.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.


title: Case C-433/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 22 September 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Domenico Rosa

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 22 September 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Domenico Rosa
   (Case C-433/14)
   (2014/C 448/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Party to the main proceedings

   Domenico Rosa

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2)

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

               3)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 9 January 2003 in Case C-178/00: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Cereals — Durum wheat — Soft wheat, barley and corn)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 44/5
1.    Dismissed the action;                                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Ordered the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                                of 9 January 2003
                                                                             in Case C-257/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the l’Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Nani Givane and
                                                                              Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)
          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    (Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                             1251/70 — Right of workers to remain in the territory of a
                                                                             Member State after having been employed in that State —
                         of 9 January 2003                                   Right of residence of members of the family of a deceased
                                                                             worker — Requirement of the worker’s continuous residence
in Case C-178/00: Italian Republic v Commission of the                                              for at least two years)
                   European Communities ( 1)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year                                                    (2003/C 44/09)
— Cereals — Durum wheat — Soft wheat, barley and corn)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2003/C 44/08)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-257/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                   in the European Court Reports)                            EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for
                                                                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Nani Givane and Others and Secretary of State
                                                                             for the Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 3(2)
In Case C-178/00: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted               of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970
by D. Del Gaizo) against Commission of the European                          on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member
Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Visaggio, assisted by                State after having been employed in that State (OJ, English
A. Dal Ferro) — application for partial annulment of the                     Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Commission’s Decision 2000/197/EC of 1 March 2000                            composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the                        C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the                    (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European                Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 January 2003, in which
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000                    it has ruled:
L 61, p. 15) in so far as it made financial adjustments to certain
expenses declared by Italy — the Court of Justice (Fifth
Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
er, and D.A.O. Edward, A La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and                On a proper construction of the first indent of Article 3(2) of
                                                                             Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970 on
S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 January 2003, in which it:                   the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after
                                                                             having been employed in that State the period of two years’ continuous
                                                                             residence required by that provision must immediately precede the
1.    Dismissed the action;                                                  worker’s death.
2.    Ordered the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case T-182/08: Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Commission v Atlantic Energy

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/46

         Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Commission v Atlantic Energy
   (Case T-182/08)
   (2008/C 171/88)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, S. Lejeune, Agents, and M. Jarvis, Barrister)

      Defendant: Atlantic Energy Ltd (Truro, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               to order the defendant to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 383 081,19 being the principal amount of EUR 226 010,00 together with EUR 76 233,61 as late payment interest calculated at the ECB rate + 2 % on the principal amount for the period between 1 June 1996 and 28 February 2002 and EUR 84 448,11 as late payment interest calculated on the principal amount plus interest to 28 February 2002 at the ECB rate + 1,5 % for the period between 16 July 2002 and 31 May 2008 less an off set in the sum of EUR 3 610,53;

               —

               to order the defendant to pay EUR 39,33 per day by way of interest from 31 May 2008 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

               —

               to order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 29 March 1996 the European Community, represented by the Commission, entered into a contract BU 183/95 UK/AT with Sidney C. Banks Plc and Jenbacher Energiesysteme AG for the implementation of the project ‘Advanced automated gasifier with CHP using waste wood as fuel’ under the Community activities in the field of non-nuclear energy (1). Pursuant to the contract provision, the Commission made an advance payment of its contribution for the project to the designated contract coordinator, Sydney C. Banks Plc.
   By fax dated 25 September 1996, Sidney C. Banks Plc informed the Commission that it had decided to withdraw from the project. On 17 April 1998 the European Community, represented by the Commission, entered into Addendum No 1 to the contract by which Atlantic Energy Ltd replaced Sidney C. Banks Plc as a party to, and coordinator under the contract.
   Pursuant to clause 2 of the Addendum Sidney C. Banks Plc transferred the advance payment received from the Commission (plus interest) to Atlantic Energy Ltd in April 1998.
   The Commission claims an order that Atlantic Energy Ltd repay the advance payment plus interest on the grounds either that the project never effectively commenced or, if it did, was terminated by the Commission.

      (1)  Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) (OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 87).


title: Case T-464/07: Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Korsch AG v OHIM (PharmaResearch)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/51

         Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Korsch AG v OHIM (PharmaResearch)
   (Case T-464/07)
   (2008/C 51/94)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Korsch AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by J. Grzam, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October 2007 in Case R 924/2007-4 concerning word mark No 5 309 836 ‘PharmaResearch’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PharmaResearch’ for goods and services in Class 9 (Application No 5 309 836)

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Art 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there were no grounds for refusal of registration.

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


title: Action brought on 11 August 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-311/98)

text:
26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 299/29
Action brought on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
         the European Communities against Ireland
                       (Case C-308/98)                             1. declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
                        (98/C 299/44)                                  provisions necessary to comply with European
                                                                       Parliament and Council Directive 94/47/EC of
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of              26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in
Justice of the European Communities on 5 August 1998                   respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
by the Commission of the European Communities,                         purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a
represented by Götz zur Hausen, its legal adviser, and                 timeshare basis (1), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
Michael Shotter, a national official seconded to the                   fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
Commission under an arrangement for the exchange of
officials, acting as agents, with an address for service in        2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Wagner.
                                                                   The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
                                                                   Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
                                                                   adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
Ð declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           addressed to them into their domestic law before the
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with          expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
    Council Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994                 to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
    adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time       laid down in Article 12 of Directive 94/47/EC, expired on
    Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation              29 April 1997 without Spain having brought into force
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions             the necessary provisions.
    relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
    of dangerous substances (1), and/or by failing to inform
                                                                   (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
    the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under that Directive, and
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Actions brought on 18 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                   Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the French
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                                Republic
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                   (Cases C-319/98, C-320/98 and C-321/98)
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                                     (98/C 299/46)
down in the Directive. That period expired on 1 September
1996 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the          Three actions against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case
conclusions of the Commission.                                     C-319/98), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (C-320/98)
                                                                   and the French Republic (Case C-321/98) respectively
(1) OJ L 381, 31.12.1994, p. 1.                                    were brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                   Communities on 18 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities, represented by Pieter van
                                                                   Nuffel, 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.
Action brought on 11 August 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                       (Case C-311/98)
                        (98/C 299/45)                              Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                       prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                     European Parliament and Council Directive 94/47/EC
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in
on 11 August 1998 by the Commission of the European                    respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
Communities, represented by Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of                purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                timeshare basis (1), and, in any event, by failing
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              to notify the abovementioned provisions to the
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand


title: Case T-68/13: Action brought on 5 February 2013 — Novartis/OHMI (CARE TO CARE)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/30

         Action brought on 5 February 2013 — Novartis/OHMI (CARE TO CARE)
   (Case T-68/13)
   2013/C 108/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 29 November 2012 — R 953/2012-1;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CARE TO CARE’ for services in classes 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 224 657

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-97/11: Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Rovi Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi (ROVI Pharmaceuticals)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/15

         Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Rovi Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi (ROVI Pharmaceuticals)
   (Case T-97/11)
   2011/C 120/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH (Schlüchtern, Germany) (represented by: M. Berghofer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 December 2010 in case R 500/2010-2;

               —

               Reject the opposition No B 1368580 in its entirety with costs;

               —

               Order the defendant to register Community trade mark application No 6475107.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ROVI Pharmaceuticals’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 6475107

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 24810 of the figurative mark ‘ROVI’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Community trade mark registration No 4953915 of the figurative mark ‘ROVICM Rovi Contract Manufacturing’, for goods and services in classes 5, 42 and 44; Spanish trade mark registration No 2509464 of the word mark ‘ROVIFARMA’, for goods and services in classes 5, 39 and 44; Spanish trade mark registration No 1324942 of the word mark ‘ROVI’, for goods in class 3; Spanish trade mark registration No 283403 of the word mark ‘ROVI’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; Spanish trade mark registration No 137853 of the figurative mark ‘ROVI’, for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion as it has incorrectly appreciated the individual factors relevant to the global assessment, and (ii) omitted to perform the global assessment of the concerned marks.


title: Case T-137/15: Order of the General Court of 5 August 2015 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/61

         Order of the General Court of 5 August 2015 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission
   (Case T-137/15) (1)

   (2015/C 381/86)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 190, 8.6.2015.


               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/1

         (2008/C 107/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 92, 12.4.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 79, 29.3.2008

      OJ C 64, 8.3.2008

      OJ C 51, 23.2.2008

      OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

      OJ C 22, 26.1.2008

      OJ C 8, 12.1.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-354/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2007 — Petralia v Commission (Officials — Temporary agents — Scientific service — Classification in grade)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2007 — Petralia v Commission
   (Case T-354/04) (1)

   (Officials - Temporary agents - Scientific service - Classification in grade)
   (2007/C 82/75)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Gaetano Petralia (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Forte, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Loggi, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 7 October 2003 definitively classifying the applicant in grade B5, step 3, and the decision of 13 May 2004 dismissing the applicant's claim.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-155/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o. (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 44 and 47 — Place where taxable transactions are deemed to be carried out — Place of supply for tax purposes — Concept of ‘supply of services connected with immovable property’ — Complex cross-border service relating to the storage of goods)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/30

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-155/12) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 44 and 47 - Place where taxable transactions are deemed to be carried out - Place of supply for tax purposes - Concept of ‘supply of services connected with immovable property’ - Complex cross-border service relating to the storage of goods)
   2013/C 225/50
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o.

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) — Interpretation of Articles 44 and 47 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended — Determination of the relevant place for tax purposes — Concept of the supply of services connected with immovable property — Complex cross-border service involving the storage of goods provided to contractual customers established in other Member States or in non-member countries and comprising the admission of goods to warehouses situated in Poland, their shelving, storage, loading and unloading, repackaging and return to the customer

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 47 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of a complex storage service, comprising admission of goods to a warehouse, placing them on the appropriate storage shelves, storing them, packaging them, issuing them, unloading and loading them, comes within the scope of that article only if the storage constitutes the principal service of a single transaction and only if the recipients of that service are given a right to use all or part of expressly specific immovable property.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case C-230/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy), Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze (Customs union — Community transit — Recovery of a customs debt — Competent Member State — Proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence — Time-limits — Liability of the principal)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy), Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze
   (Case C-230/06) (1)

   (Customs union - Community transit - Recovery of a customs debt - Competent Member State - Proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence - Time-limits - Liability of the principal)
   (2008/C 128/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Militzer & Münch GmbH

      Defendant: Ministero delle Finanze,
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1) and Article 215(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Discharge by the customs office of destination evidenced by forged documents — Period prescribed for notifying the fact that a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination — Applicability
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the referring court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred. If that is the case, the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant to Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. On the other hand, if the place where the offence or irregularity was committed cannot be thus established, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs has jurisdiction to recover the customs duties, in accordance with Articles 378 and 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92.

               2.

               Where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, it is for the office of departure alone to make the notification required within the 11-month and 3-month time-limits laid down by Article 379(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2454/93.

               3.

               It is not contrary to the principle of proportionality to hold a customs clearance agent, in his capacity as principal, liable for a customs debt.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case C-482/04 P: Order of the Court of  21 November 2005  — SNF SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Directive on cosmetic products — Restrictions on the use of polyacrylamides in the composition of cosmetic products)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/20

         Order of the Court of 21 November 2005 — SNF SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-482/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive on cosmetic products - Restrictions on the use of polyacrylamides in the composition of cosmetic products)
   (2006/C 143/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: SNF SA (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2004 in Case T-213/02 SNF v Commission, declaring inadmissible an application for the partial annulment of the Twenty-sixth Commission Directive 2002/34/EC of 15 April 2002 adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III and VII to Council Directive 76/748/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 2002 L 102, p. 19)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               SNF SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-189/94, T-190/94 and T-191/94

text:
No C 351 /22           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               30 . 12 . 95
European Union and Commission of the European                                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases
Communities .                                                                    T- 18 9/94 , T-190/94 and T-191 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /43 )
(') 0 | No C 312 , 8 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      Removal from the register of Case T-561 /93 ( )                  By order of 19 October 1995 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                           ( 95/C 351 /41 )
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
              (Language of the case: English)                          from the register of Joined Cases T-l 89/94 , T-190/94
                                                                       and T-191 /94 : Philippe Heno, Michel Manchion and
By order of 16 October 1995 the President of the Second                Jean-Michel Tellier v. Council of the European Union and
Chamber, extended composition , of the Court of First                  Commission of the European Communities .
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-561 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA v.            (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .
Commission of the European Communities .
(') OJ No C 334 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-66/94 ( )                        Removal from the register of Case T-154/95 H
                           ( 95/C 351 /42 )                                                      ( 95/C 351 /44 )
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 8 November 1995 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First                 By order of 21 November 1995 the President of the Fifth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-66/94 : Auditel Sri v.                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                               T-154/95 : Ittima Maremmana Sari v. Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities .
(') 0 } No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Joined Cases C-462/03 and C-463/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Strabag AG, Kostmann GmbH v Österreichische Bundesbahnen (Public procurement contracts — Directive 93/38/EEC — Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Concepts of ‘operation’ and ‘provision’ of networks providing a service to the public in the field of transport by railway — Railway infrastructure works)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 16 June 2005
   in Joined Cases C-462/03 and C-463/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Strabag AG, Kostmann GmbH v Österreichische Bundesbahnen (1)

   (Public procurement contracts - Directive 93/38/EEC - Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Concepts of ‘operation’ and ‘provision’ of networks providing a service to the public in the field of transport by railway - Railway infrastructure works)
   (2005/C 193/08)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases C-462/03 and C-463/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria), made by decision of 27 October 2003, received at the Court on 4 November 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Strabag AG (C-462/03), Kostmann GmbH (C-463/03) and Österreichische Bundesbahnen — the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Where a contracting entity exercising one of the activities particularly mentioned in Article 2(2) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors contemplates, in the exercise of that activity, the award of a supply, works or service contract or the organisation of a design contest, that contract or contest is governed by the provisions of this directive.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


C 366/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-385/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-160/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/70)                                                        (1999/C 366/73)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-385/94: Johann Wißmüller v Council of the European              Case T-160/95: Harald Meuser v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 248 of 23.9.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-397/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-202/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/71)                                                        (1999/C 366/74)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-397/94: Gerjet Meyenburg v Council of the European              Case T-202/95: Heinrich Gottmann v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 400 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 351 of 30.12.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-399/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-150/96 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/72)                                                        (1999/C 366/75)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: French)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-399/94: Josef Speckbacher v Council of the European             Case T-150/96: Austin Rowan v Commission of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case T-230/01: Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 348/24               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8.12.2001
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio                       Action brought on 28 September 2001 by Andreas Stihl
Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and                  AG & Co. against the Office for Harmonization in the
the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno                               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-230/01)                                                        (Case T-234/01)
                         (2001/C 348/47)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/48)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
rio Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and the
Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
Alava (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.                   An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             28 September 2001 by Andreas Stihl AG & Co., Waiblingen
                                                                        (Germany), represented by Rechtsanwalt S. Völker with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg.
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      which is contested in this action; in the alternative, annul
      Article 3 of that decision;
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal 24 July
                                                                              2001 in Case R 447/2000-1 relating to Community
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Trade Mark application No 338 194;
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 1760                 —     order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common                  (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
market the tax reductions arising from Article 26 of Norma
Foral (Regional Law) No 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corpor-
ation tax (Boletı́n Oficial del Territorio Histórico de Alava of
9 August 1996), which provides for a reduction of 99 %,
75 %, 50 % and 25 % of the basis for assessment of the
aforementioned tax applicable during the first four tax years
for undertakings which set up business in the Territorio                Pleas in law and main arguments
Histórico de Alava with effect from the entry into force of the
Law, provided that they have disbursed capital amounting to
more than ESP 20 million (EUR 120 202), invest more than
                                                                        Trade mark:                   Combination of two particular
ESP 80 million (EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new
                                                                                colours namely an orange (colour
jobs.                                                                                Pantone 164c) and a grey (colour
                                                                                Pantone 428u) — Colour mark
                                                                                — Application No 338 194
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
T-227/01.                                                               Goods or services:            Goods in Class 7 (including motor
                                                                                saws, mechanical cutting-off
                                                                                machines with guide devices and
                                                                                mechanical cutting apparatus)


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-421/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): Traunfellner GmbH v Österreichische Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag) (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept of a "variant" — Conditions for consideration and assessment for the purpose of awarding a contract)

text:
29.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 289/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 16 October 2003                                                             of 16 October 2003
in Case C-252/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-421/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                               the Bundesvergabeamt): Traunfellner GmbH v Österre-
                                                                             ichische Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-
                                                                                AG (Asfinag) (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Procedures for the award of public service contracts —
Directive 92/50/EEC — Renewal of a contract for surveil-                     (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept
       lance of the Belgian coast by aerial photography)                     of a ‘variant’ — Conditions for consideration and assessment
                                                                                for the purpose of awarding a contract)
                         (2003/C 289/04)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/05)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(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-252/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Lier, assisted by J. Stuyck) v Kingdom of                     In Case C-421/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx): Application for a declaration that:              EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that tribunal between
—    by failing, in respect of a contract to perform services                Traunfellner GmbH and Österreichische Autobahnen- und
     involving coastal surveillance by means of aerial pho-                  Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag) on the interpret-
     tography, to place a notice in the Official Journal of the              ation of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
     European Communities, as required under Directive 92/                   concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
     50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the               public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), the Court
     award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1);                (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
     and                                                                     the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken
                                                                             and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
                                                                             M.F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
—    by making use, without justification, of the negotiated                 given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
     procedure without prior publication of a contract notice,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                  1.    Article 19 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
under that directive and, in particular, Articles 11(3) and                        concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
15(2), thereof, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-                        public works contracts is to be interpreted as meaning that the
P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-                    obligation to set out the minimum specifications required by a
ris, N. Colneric, and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                           contracting authority in order to take variants into consideration
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal                          is not satisfied where the contract documents merely refer to a
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                          provision of national legislation requiring an alternative tender
16 October 2003, in which it:                                                      to ensure the performance of work which is qualitatively
                                                                                equivalent to that for which tenders are invited.
1.   Dismisses the application;                                              2.    Article 30 of Directive 93/37 can apply only to variants which
                                                                                have been properly taken into consideration by the contracting
2.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                   authority in accordance with Article 19 of that directive.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                    (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case T-569/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)
   (Case T-569/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS - Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for alteration - Admissibility)
   2012/C 366/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Panrico SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM;

               3.

               Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case C-265/10: Action brought on 28 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/21

         Action brought on 28 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-265/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/35
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and M. van Beek, 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 implement the penalties for infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   As the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted all the measures with regard to the implementation of penalties for infringement of the REACH Regulation, which should have entered into force by 1 December 2008 at the latest, or at least has failed to inform the Commission thereof, the Commission concludes that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 126 of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1.


title: Case T-135/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Hitachi Chemical Europe and Others v ECHA (REACH — Identification of certain respiratory sensitisers as substances of very high concern — Equivalent level of concern — Action for annulment — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Rights of the defence — Proportionality)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Hitachi Chemical Europe and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-135/13) (1)

   ((REACH - Identification of certain respiratory sensitisers as substances of very high concern - Equivalent level of concern - Action for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 198/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany); Polynt SpA, (Scanzorosciate, Italy); Sitre Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: REACh ChemAdvice GmbH (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem); and New Japan Chemical (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Decision ED/169/2012 of the ECHA of 18 December 2012 concerning the inclusion of substances of very high concern in the list of candidate substances, in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), in so far as it concerns hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride (EC No 247-094-1), hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride (EC No 243-072-0), hexahydro-1-methylphthalic anhydride (EC No 256-356-4) and hexahydro-3-methylphthalic anhydride (EC No 260-566-1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Commission, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH and New Japan Chemical to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Case T-378/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Masco and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Masco and Others v Commission
   (Case T-378/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement)
   2013/C 325/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Masco Corp. (Michigan, United States of America); Hansgrohe AG (Schiltach, Germany); Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH (Schiltach); Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Wiener Neudorf, Austria); Hansgrohe SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium); Hansgrohe BV (Westknollendam, Netherlands); Hansgrohe SARL (Antony, France); Hansgrohe SRL (Villanova d’Asti, Italy); Hüppe GmbH (Bad Zwischenahn, Germany); Hüppe Ges.mbH (Laxenburg, Austria); Hüppe Belgium SA (Woluwé Saint-Étienne, Belgium); Hüppe BV (Alblasserdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Schroeder, S. Heinz, lawyers, and J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted by B. Kennelly, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), in so far as the Commission finds that the applicants participated in a single complex infringement in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe SRL, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Ges.mbH, Hüppe Belgium SA and Hüppe BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-174/07: Action brought on 21 May 2007 — Volkswagen AG v OHIM

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/40

         Action brought on 21 May 2007 — Volkswagen AG v OHIM
   (Case T-174/07)
   (2007/C 155/73)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by S. Risthaus, Rechtsanwalt)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 March 2007, notified on 23 March 2007 (Case R 1479/2005-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TDI’ for goods and services in classes 4, 7 and 37.

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by disregarding the decision of the Board of Appeal of 12 May 2003 in Case R 53/2002-4;

               —

               Infringement of the first sentence of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 by improperly examining the facts of its own motion;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by deciding that the trade mark applied for is devoid of any distinctive character;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 by deciding that the mark applied for has a descriptive function;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 by deciding that the trade mark applied for has not become distinctive in consequence of the use which has been made of it.


title: Case T-285/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 –Andrieu v Commission (Officials — Action for annulment — Career development report — Rights of the defence — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 –Andrieu v Commission
   (Case T-285/04) (1)

   (Officials - Action for annulment - Career development report - Rights of the defence - Action for damages - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 224/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michel Andrieu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents, and M. Genton, lawyer)
   Re:
   Firstly, action for annulment of the applicant's career development report for 2001/2002 and, secondly, action for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-120/03: Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 112/18                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     Action brought on 19 March 2003 by the Commission of
the Court should:                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                         (Case C-122/03)
      Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 on
      the transparency of financial relations between Member
      States and public undertakings as well as on financial                                         (2003/C 112/32)
      transparency within certain undertakings (1) or, in any
      event, by failing to notify them to the Commission,
      France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
—     order France to pay the costs.                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by H. Støvlbæk and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 31 January              The applicant claims that the Court should:
2001.
                                                                           1.    Declare that, by imposing, pursuant to Article R. 5142-
( 1) OJ L 193 of 29 July 2002, p. 78.                                            15 of the Public Health Code, on traders importing or
                                                                                distributing in France medicinal products which are
                                                                                already covered by a marketing authorisation for the
                                                                                French or Community market the requirement that they
                                                                                submit, at the request of the monitoring authorities,
                                                                                either a certified copy issued by the French agency for
Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of                             health products sanitary safety (FAHPSS) of the French
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                            marketing authorisation or of the registration of the
                                                                                medicinal product, or a document issued by the FAHPSS
                           (Case C-120/03)                                       attesting to the fact that the imported medicinal product
                                                                                has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the
                           (2003/C 112/31)                                       European Community, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the EC Treaty;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                  2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Banks and J.L. Buendía Sierra, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           So far as concerns the importation into France of pharmaceuti-
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                           cal products already covered by a marketing authorisation for
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                           the French or Community market, Article R. 5142-15 of the
      Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           Public Health Code requires the submission at the request of
      the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection
                                                                           customs officers of either a certified copy of the marketing
      of designs or, in any event, by failing to communicate
                                                                           authorisation or of the registration of the medicinal product
      them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                           or a document attesting to the fact that the imported medicinal
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                           product has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         European Community, each of those documents being issued
                                                                           by the FAHPSS.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The effects of that provision on traders wishing to import and
                                                                           distribute pharmaceutical products in France may be resumed
The period prescribed for implementation of the directive                  as follows: (i) formalities, costs and the time entailed by the
expired on 28 October 2001.                                                granting procedure are imposed on traders which they are
                                                                           obliged to bear, on pain of sanctions, throughout its term; (ii)
( 1) OJEC L 289 of 28 October 1998, p. 28.                                 those same traders are obliged to be constantly in possession
                                                                           of documents which could be potentially numerous and
                                                                           voluminous.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2005 in Case T-80/04 Jean-Pierre Castets v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Invalidity — Compensation for leave not taken — Number of days taken into account for the purpose of calculating compensation — Reasons not attributable to the requirements of the service)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/27

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 June 2005
   in Case T-80/04 Jean-Pierre Castets v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Invalidity - Compensation for leave not taken - Number of days taken into account for the purpose of calculating compensation - Reasons not attributable to the requirements of the service)
   (2005/C 193/45)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-80/04: Jean-Pierre Castets, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Saint-Victor-des-Oules (France), represented by G. Crétin, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of the Commission fixing the amount of compensation for annual leave not taken by the applicant at the time of leaving the service, insofar as the compensation calculation is a result of the fact that the amount of leave which may be carried over is limited to twelve days per calendar year — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-92/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 25 February 2014 — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 25 February 2014 — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL
   (Case C-92/14)
   2014/C 142/29
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Câmpulung

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran

      Defendant: SC Suport Colect SRL

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Council Directive 93/13/EC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Directive 2008/48/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC applicable also to a credit agreement concluded on 5 October 2006, before Romania acceded to the European Union, but whose effects are still produced now, in that the terms thereof form the subject of enforcement at present, following successive assignments of the debt for which it makes provision?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can terms such as those concerning ‘service of the borrower’s debt’, that refer to the existence of delays in payment on the part of the debtor, and those relating to the increase in the rate of interest after one year, after which the rate is the variable reference rate of the Banca Comercială Română, posted at the bank’s headquarters, increased by 1,90 [percent], be considered to be unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               3.

               Does the principle of effective judicial protection of the rights that individuals derive from EU law, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that laid down in Article 120 of Emergency Decree No 99 of December 2006 on credit institutions and capital adequacy, which recognises the enforceability of a bank credit agreement concluded by private agreement and without allowing the terms thereof to be negotiated with the debtor, under which, with brief verification and after obtaining authorisation for enforcement in a non-contentious procedure, and with limited scope for the court to assess the amount of the debt, a bailiff may seize the debtor’s assets

               4.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State, such as Article 372 et seq. of the former Code of Civil Procedure, from allowing a creditor to seek enforcement of a debt deriving from unfair contractual terms by seizing an asset charged as security through the sale of the immovable property, notwithstanding the consumer’s objection, without an independent judge’s carrying out an examination of the contractual terms?

               5.

               Does the existence in national law of a provision such as Article 120 of Emergency Decree No 99 of December 2006 on credit institutions and capital adequacy, which recognises the enforceability of the bank credit agreement, prejudice the right to freedom of establishment laid down in Article 49 TFEU and the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 45 TFEU in that it discourages citizens of the Union from establishing themselves in a State in which the same value as an enforceable instrument represented by a judgment is conferred on a bank agreement concluded by a private institution?

               6.

               If the answer to the preceding questions is in the affirmative, can the national court raise of its own motion the non-enforceability of such an instrument pursuant to which the enforcement of a debt stated in a contract is carried out?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.