13.10.2001            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 289/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-433/99 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria): Margrith
                                                                    Petersilge, née Lackner v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der ge-
                         (2001/C 289/37)                            werblichen Wirtschaft.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-433/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione Tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): Panarotta 2002 Srl v Ufficio delle Imposte
Dirette di Trento.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-4/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/41)
                                                                    By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-434/99 (1)               the register of Case C-4/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v French Republic.
                         (2001/C 289/38)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-434/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): NTB SpA v Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
Trento.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-82/00 (1)
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/42)
                                                                    By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-82/00: Commission of the European
       Removal from the register of Case C-501/99 (1)               Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2001/C 289/39)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
By order of 11 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-501/99: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-130/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/43)
                                                                    By order of 5 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
       Removal from the register of Case   C-511/99 (1)
                                                                    register of Case C-130/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                         (2001/C 289/40)
By order of 25 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-511/99: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case C-687/15: Action brought on 17 December 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/24

         Action brought on 17 December 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-687/15)
   (2016/C 068/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, L. Nicolae, agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopted on 26 October 2015 at the 3419th meeting of the Council in Luxembourg;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By way of the present application the Commission seeks the annulment of the ‘Council Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)’ adopted on 26 October 2015 at the 3419th meeting of the Council in Luxembourg.

               2.

               The Application is founded on a single plea in law namely that in adopting the Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) instead of a Decision as proposed by the Commission, the Council has violated Article 218(9) TFEU which applies to the adoption of the position to be taken on behalf of the Union at the WRC-15.

               3.

               In this regard, the Commission argues, first, that Article 218 (9) TFEU applies to positions to be adopted on the Union's behalf in a situation as the one at hand where the European Union has a status in the international organisation concerned, namely that of a Sector member which, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the ITU Constitution, provides the European Union certain rights of activities in the organisation.

               4.

               Second, the Commission argues that the revisions of the Radio Regulations for which the Commission has proposed the adoption of a position to be taken in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU produce legal effects in the sense of that provision both under the applicable international legal framework and under the relevant Union rules.

               5.

               Third, as regards the other conditions for the application of Article 218(9) TFEU, the Commission argues that these are equally fulfilled in the present case as the organs of ITU are bodies ‘set up by an agreement’ and that the acts in relation to which the Commission has proposed the adoption of a position to be taken do not ‘[supplement] or [amend] the institutional framework of the agreement’.


title: Case C-242/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Derogation provided for in Article 14 — Use by farmers of the product of the harvest for propagating purposes without the holder’s authorisation — Farmers under an obligation to pay equitable remuneration for such use — Period within which that remuneration must be paid in order to be able to benefit from the derogation — Whether it is possible for the holder to have recourse to Article 94 — Infringement)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel
   (Case C-242/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Derogation provided for in Article 14 - Use by farmers of the product of the harvest for propagating purposes without the holder’s authorisation - Farmers under an obligation to pay equitable remuneration for such use - Period within which that remuneration must be paid in order to be able to benefit from the derogation - Whether it is possible for the holder to have recourse to Article 94 - Infringement))
   (2015/C 279/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Mannheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

      Defendants: Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel

      Operative part of the judgment

   In order to be able to benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights from the obligation to obtain the authorisation of the holder of the plant variety right concerned, a farmer who has planted propagating material obtained from a protected plant variety (farm-saved seed) without having concluded a contract for so doing with the holder is required to pay the equitable remuneration due under the fourth indent of Article 14(3) of that regulation within the period that expires at the end of the marketing year during which that planting took place, that is, no later than 30 June following the date of reseeding.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I by orders of that court of 8 January 1997 in the cases of WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH v. Franz Attenberger (Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97)

text:
No C 166/4           | EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       31 . 5 . 97
which had itself prolonged the validity of the Community                References for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
framework on State aid to the motor vehicle industry —                  München I by orders of that court of 8 January 1997 in
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. E Mancini,                  the cases of WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und
President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                      Vertriebs GmbH v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),                      and WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Ver
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-                                     triebs GmbH v. Franz Attenberger
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                   ( Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97)
given a judgment on 15 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/07 )
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision, notified by letter of
      6 July 1995, to prolong, with retroactive effect from             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      1 January 1995, the Commission decision of                        European Communities by two orders of the Landgericht
      23 December 1992 which had itself prolonged the                   München I ( Munich I Regional Court) of 8 January 1997,
      validity of the Community framework on State aid to               which were received at the Court Registry on 14 March
      the motor vehicle industry;                                       1997, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of WSC
                                                                        Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
                                                                        v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and WSC
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
                                                                        v. Franz Attenberger on the following questions:
0 ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                        1 . Questions on Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) ('):
                                                                             Is Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) to be understood as meaning that it
                                                                             suffices if there is a possibility of the designation being
                                                                             used to indicate the geographical origin, or must that
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                        possibility be likely in the particular case ( in the sense
                          of 4 March 1997                                    that other such undertakings already use that word to
                                                                             designate the geographical origin of their goods of
in Case C-46/96: Federal Republic of Germany v.                              similar type, or at least that there are specific reasons
         Commission of the European Communities ( J )                        to believe that that may be expected in the foreseeable
                   (No need to give a decision)                              future ), or must there even be a need to use that
                                                                             designation to indicate the geographical origin of the
                             ( 97/C 166/06 )                                 goods in question, or must there in addition also be a
                                                                             qualified need for the use of that indication of origin,
                (Language of the case: German)                               for instance because goods of that kind, produced in
                                                                             that region, enjoy a special reputation ?
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                          Is it of significance for a broader or narrower
                                                                             interpretation of Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) with respect to
                                                                             geographical indications of origin that the effects of
 In Case C-46/96 : Federal Republic of Germany ( Agent:                      the mark are restricted under Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b )?
 Ernst Röder) against Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents: Anders Christian Jessen and Paul F.                   Do geographical indications of origin under Article 3
 Nemitz, with Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch )                        ( 1 ) (c ) cover only those which relate to the
 — application for annulment of Decision C(95 ) 3319 final                   manufacture of the goods at that place, or does trade
 of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning                            in those goods at that place or from that place suffice,
 fiscal aid in the field of depreciation favouring German                    or in the case of the production of textiles does it
 undertakings — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez                       suffice if they are designed in the region designated
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                        but then manufactured under contract elsewhere ?
 Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
 ( Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                         2 . Questions on the first sentence of Article 3 (3):
 Schintgen, Judges; Advocate-General, D. Ruiz-Jarabo
 Colomer; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 4 March                      What requirements follow from this provision for the
 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :                            registrability of a descriptive designation under
                                                                              Article 3 ( 1 ) ( c )?
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                              In particular, are the requirements the same in all
                                                                              cases, or are the requirements different according to
 2 . The Commission shall pay the costs.                                      the degree of the need to leave free ?
  (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                           Is in particular the view hitherto taken in the German
                                                                              case-law, namely that in the case of descriptive
                                                                               designations which need to be left free, trade
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 166/5
      acceptance in more than 50% of the trade circles                  Such a specific prohibition is contrary to Article 4 of
      concerned is required and is to be demonstrated,                  Directive    90/396/EEC       inasmuch     as it constitutes an
      compatible with that provision ?                                  obstacle to the putting into service of appliances to which
                                                                        the directive applies and which conform to the essential
                                                                        requirements provided for therein.
      Do requirements follow from this provision as to the
      manner in which descriptive character acquired by use
      is to be ascertained ?                                            The argument that Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 is
                                                                        compatible with Directive 90/396/EEC on account of the
C ) First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate          safety requirements on which it is based is unfounded .
    the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ( 89/         Indeed, the essential requirements laid down by the
     104/EEC ) ( OJ No L 40, 1989, p. 1 ).                              directive in respect of the installation and use of
                                                                        appliances burning gaseous fuels — including of the ' open'
                                                                        type — are exhaustive in that they conform to all the
                                                                        relevant safety requirements and are mandatory in nature .
                                                                        In the present case, the national authority is no longer
                                                                        able to maintain in force nor to adopt national provisions
                                                                        which require compliance with additional requirements,
Action brought on 18 March 1997 by the Commission of                    otherwise the achievement and the functioning of the
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                internal market would be unlawfully hindered.
                            Case C-l 12/97
                             ( 97/C 166/08 )                            The argument that Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 should
                                                                        be regarded as a lawful derogation under Article 36 and
                                                                        100a (4 ), or Article 129a of the EC Treaty from the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before               principle of the free movement of goods is also
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     unfounded .
18 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli and Hans
                                                                        (') OJ No L 196 , 26 . 7. 1990 , p . 15 .
Stovlbaek, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 19 March 1997 by Commission of the
— declare that, by establishing and maintaining a system                     European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
      which requires the installation in inhabited areas only                                    (Case C-l 14/97)
      of 'shielded' heaters, thus impliedly prohibiting the
      installation of heaters of any other type which comply                                       ( 97/C 166/09 )
      with Directive 90/396/EEC ( 1 ), the Italian Republic has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law,
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           on 17 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by A. Caeiro and F. Castillo de
                                                                         la Torre, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 5 ( 10 ) of Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica
 ( Decree of the President of the Republic ) of 26 August                The applicant claims that the Court should:
 1993 (hereinafter DPR 412/93 ) provides that in cases of
 new installations or restructuring of heating systems which
 involve the installation of individual heaters, except in               — declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 7, 8 and
 cases of mere replacement, heaters insulated from the                       10 of Law No 23/1992 of 30 July 1992 0 ), in so far
 inhabited area may be used or, where installation is                        as those provisions make the grant of authorization to
 external or in suitable industrial premises, appliances of                  carry on private security activities in the case of
 any type may be fitted .                                                    ' security companies' subject to the requirement of
                                                                             being constituted in Spain and the requirement that
                                                                             their directors and managers should reside in Spain
 Although Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 does not contain a                  and the requirement that the 'security staff should
 prohibition on the marketing of non-insulated ('open')                      possess Spanish nationality, the Kingdom of Spain has
 heaters or a general prohibition on their installation, it is               failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in
 none the less true that that provision does prohibit                        particular Articles 48 , 52 and 59,
 specifically, albeit impliedly, the fitting of such heaters in
 inhabited areas when installing anew or restructuring
 heating systems.                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-101/13: Action brought on 7 October 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/41

         Action brought on 7 October 2013 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-101/13)
   2013/C 367/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: EEAS

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 19 December 2012, taking effect on 1 July 2013, no longer to grant the allowance for living conditions provided for in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials employed in the Republic of Mauritius.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority to abolish from 1 July 2013 all of the applicants’ allowances for living conditions under Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case C-77/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Cassation, première chambre civile, (France) by order of that Court of 20 January 2004 in the case of GIE Réunion européenne, Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent, Assurances mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now Zurich España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d'Automobiles "Soptrans" SA

text:
3.4.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/19
(a)    the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period         2.    Is Article 6(2) applicable when determining which court
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business                      has jurisdiction to entertain an action on a warranty or
       activities which are presumed to be fully taxed;                          guarantee or third-party proceedings between insurers
                                                                                and, if so, is such application contingent on there being a
(b) the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period                  connection between the various claims within the mean-
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business                      ing of Article 22 of the convention or, at the very least,
       activities which are presumed to be fully exempt;                         on evidence that there is sufficient connection between
                                                                                such claims to demonstrate that there has been no
       or                                                                        avoidance of jurisdiction?
(c)    the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
       activities which are presumed to be partly taxed and
       partly exempt in the proportion of the respective values
       of the taxed sale of the freehold reversion and the exempt
       grant of the 999 year lease?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC OF 17 May 1977 on the                                          of Luxembourg
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment. OJ L 145, 13.6.1977 p. 1-40.                                                  (Case C-79/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/36)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                          ties on 19 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Cassation, première chambre civile, (France) by order of                   Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Schima, acting
that Court of 20 January 2004 in the case of GIE Réunion                   as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
européenne, Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent, Assurances
mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now Zurich
España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automobiles                    The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                           ‘Soptrans’ SA                                   the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                          (Case C-77/04)                                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2002/40/EC of 8 May 2002
                                                                                implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
                          (2004/C 85/35)                                         to energy labelling of household electric ovens (1), or in
                                                                                any event by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                                Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Cour de Cassation,                    2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
première chambre civile (Court of Cassation, first civil chamb-
er) (France) of 20 January 2004, received at the Court Registry
on 17 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of GIE Réunion européenne,Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent,                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Assurances mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now
Zurich España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automob-
iles ‘Soptrans’ SA on the following questions:
                                                                           The period for transposition of the directive expired on
                                                                           31 December 2002.
1.     Are actions between insurers on a warranty or guarantee
       based on multiple insurance or co-insurance rather than
       on a reinsurance agreement covered by the provisions on             (1) OJ L 128 of 15.5.2002, p. 45.
       matters relating to insurance of Section 3 of Title II of the
       Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as amended
       by the accession convention of 1978?


title: Case C-88/10: Order of the President of the Court of 19 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Italy) — Assessorato del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale v Seasoft SpA

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/27

      Order of the President of the Court of 19 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Italy) — Assessorato del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale v Seasoft SpA
      (Case C-88/10) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/50)
      Language of the case: Italian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


C 122/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission                           Removal from the register of Case C-373/98 (1)
         of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (2000/C 122/30)
                         (Case C-70/00)
                        (2000/C 122/28)                                 By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of               from the register of Case C-373/98: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by              European Communities v French Republic.
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the                (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Commission Directive 98/36/EC (1) of 2 June 1998
     amending Directive 96/5/EC on processed cereal-based
     foods and baby foods and baby foods for infants and
     young children (2) or, an any event, by failing to inform the             Removal from the register of Case C-161/99 (1)
     Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
     its obligations under that Directive; and,
                                                                                (2000/C 122/31)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                        By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        from the register of Case C-161/99: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Italian Republic.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance               (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) OJ L 167, 12.06.1998, p. 23.
(2) Commission Directive 96/5/EC, Euratom of 16 February 1996,
    OJ L 049, 28.02.1996, p. 17.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-149/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/32)
        Removal from the register of Case C-360/98 (1)                  By order of 14 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                        (2000/C 122/29)                                 from the register of Case C-149/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Johannes Blachnitzky
By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of               v Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal             Landesregierung.
from the register of Case C-360/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Bobigny): Bernard
Bauduin and Laurent Blondeau v SA Renault.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Case T-127/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Alvaro Sesma Merino against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-125/12, Sesma Merino v OHIM

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/31

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Alvaro Sesma Merino against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-125/12, Sesma Merino v OHIM
   (Case T-127/14 P)
   2014/C 184/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Alvaro Sesma Merino (El Campello, Spain) (represented by H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 in Case F-125/12 and rule in accordance with the form of order sought by the appellant in those proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal after setting aside the abovementioned judgment;

               —

               annul the appellant’s appraisal report for 2011 in the version of 1 February 2012 and the respondent’s emails of 14.51 on 2 February 2012 and 15.49 on 2 February 2012, in so far as they contain the objectives set for the appellant by OHIM in respect of the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the appellant damages of an appropriate amount, to be left to the discretion of the Court, for the non-material damage caused to him;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the entire proceedings — namely, the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the appeal before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal: infringement of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations

                           —

                           The appellant submits that, contrary to the view taken in the judgment under appeal, the setting of objectives is indeed an act which directly and individually affects the legal position of the person concerned and is capable of adversely affecting a particular legal position directly.

                           —

                           In this connection the appellant submits, inter alia, that the Civil Service Tribunal examined only whether the setting of the objectives would give rise to binding legal effects for the official’s future appraisal, instead of examining whether the setting of objectives would per se give rise to binding legal effects for the appellant, a question which should, in any event, have been answered in the affirmative. The appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal confused the setting of objectives with his appraisal. In addition, it would be contrary to the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of proportionality and thus to the principle of the rule of law, if an official could be made subject for a whole year to unreasonable working conditions due to unreasonable objectives without being able to defend himself against this directly.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal: infringement of the fundamental right to effective legal protection under Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

                           —

                           The appellant submits that there is infringement of the fundamental right to effective legal protection due to the lack of a substantive examination. He puts forward that he submitted that other fundamental rights had been infringed and that such an infringement always also constitutes an act with adverse effects under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The reference to proceedings in respect of the subsequent appraisal infringes the fundamental right to effective legal protection.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal: infringement of the laws of logic

                           —

                           Here the appellant submits that the categorisation of the setting of objectives as a merely preparatory measure for the appraisal constitutes an infringement of the laws of logic.

                           —

                           The same applies to the Tribunal’s statement that the setting of an objective may, under certain conditions, also be regarded as an act with adverse effects for the purposes of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. It is precisely the examination of those conditions, however, which constitutes an examination of the merits. The Civil Service Tribunal thus acknowledges the need for a judicial remedy, which it then, however, inconsistently, refuses as inadmissible.


title: Action brought on 13 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against SA Royale Belge and Others (Case C-76/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/ 13
     (c ) makes it possible to channel towards the                      — Lack of competence: Regulation ( EC ) No 3303/94
           undertakings referred to in paragraph ( b ) the                  introduces measures with regard to the three countries in
           demand for welfare services provided to old                      question which are at variance with Regulation ( EC )
           people;                                                          No 404/93 . Under Article 149 ( 3 ) of the Act of
                                                                            Accession, that power was vested in the Council and not
     ( d ) allows imposition on undertakings of the obligation              in the Commission .
           to provide, at their own expense, services ancillary
           to those provided by them in return for payment;             — Inadequate statement of reasons .
                                                                        0 ) OJ No L 341 , 30 . 12 . 1994 , p . 46 .
     ( e ) gives rise to arrangements whose effect is to impose
           on non-participating undertakings the obligation to
           provide at their own expense services ancillary to
           the service offered , passing the cost thereof on to
           users ;                                                      Action brought on 13 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against SA Royale Belge and
     ( f) thus creates the necessity of transferring to users the                                         Others
           economic burden of such services, which are
                                                                                ( Case C-76/95 )
           otherwise, where users avail themselves of the
                                                                                95/C 159/26
           services of the undertakings participating in the
           arrangement, free of charge ?
                                                                        An action against SA Royale Belge, acting on its own
                                                                        account and as agent and nominee for the following
                                                                        insurance companies : 1 . SA Assurances générales de France;
                                                                        2 . Caisse nationale de prévoyance ; 3 . Les Mutuelles du
                                                                        Mans; 4 . SA Assurantie van de belgische Boerenbond; 5 . SA
                                                                        Hannover; 6 . AG-Securitas and 7. Condor, was brought
Action brought on 14 March 1995 by the Kingdom of                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Belgium against the Commission of the European                          13 March 1 995 by the Commission of the European
                              Communities                               Communities, represented by Julian Currall, of the Legal
                                                                        Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Jean-Luc Fagnart, of the
                           ( Case C-71/95 )                             Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                             ( 95/C 159/25 )                            the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should :
European Communities on 14 March 1995 by the Kingdom
of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of                     — order the defendant to pay the capital sum due or
Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign                  becoming due to the Commission pursuant to Article 73
Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries , acting                    of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  Communities in consequence of the occupational
Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .                                      disease     of    Mr      L. ,  a   former official of  the
                                                                            Commission ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay default interest pursuant to
                                                                            Article 1 ( 2 ) of the Agreement from 6 May 1994, the date
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3303/94 of                          upon which formal notice was given to the insurers by
     21 December 1994 introducing transitional measures                     the Commission,
     for imports of bananas into Austria, Finland and Sweden
     in the first quarter of 1995 (*) and order the Commission          — order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to
     to pay the costs .                                                     Article 69 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
                                                                            Justice.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Discrimination : Article 4 of Regulation ( EC )                       The action has been brought before the Court on the basis of
     No 3303/94 is clearly at variance with Article 19 of               an arbitration clause contained in a contract of insurance
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 ; each of the                 the purpose of which is to cover the financial consequences
     countries in question receives an individual quota                 of the obligations assumed by the Communities under the
     without the allocation laid down in Article 19 of
                                                                        Staff Regulations in respect of accidents and occupational
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 . The introduction of such            diseases suffered by members of their staff. The parties are in
     a specific scheme gives rise to discrimination between the         dispute regarding the question whether the contract of
     various market participants depending on whether they              insurance allows the insurers to contest the correctness of
     are established in one of the original Member States of            the opinion given by the medical committee.
     the European Union or in one of the Member States
     which acceded on 1 January 1995 .


title: Case C-79/07: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-79/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/63)

      Language of the case: Maltese

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

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case C-275/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 12 May 2005 in Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg, joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad Leiprecht

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 12 May 2005 in Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg, joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad Leiprecht
   (Case C-275/05)
   (2005/C 229/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of 12 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Alois Kibler jun. and Land Baden-Württemberg, joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad Leiprecht, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is national legislation of a Member State, which provides that on the return of a leased part of a holding the corresponding reference quantity for the areas of the tenant's holding used for milk production is to revert to the landlord along with that part of the holding even if the landlord, at the time it is so returned, is no longer a milk producer, no longer intends to take up milk production and also does not intend to grant a lease to another milk producer, in conformity with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, (1) as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 590/85, (2) and with Article 7(2), (3) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88? (3)

               2.

               If the answer to the first question should be in the negative: Is national legislation of a Member State, which provides that on the ending of a lease the reference quantity is to be retained in its entirety by the tenant of that part of the holding, in conformity with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 590/85, and with Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 even where the lease has been voluntarily brought to an end?

      (1)  OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ 1985 L 68, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1988 L 139, p. 12.


title: Case T-307/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2009 — Hansgrohe v OHIM (AIRSHOWER) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark AIRSHOWER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2009 — Hansgrohe v OHIM (AIRSHOWER)
   (Case T-307/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark AIRSHOWER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 55/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Hansgrohe AG (Schiltach, Germany) (represented by: S. Weidert and J. Zehnsdorf, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, initially, and G. Schneider and S. Schäffner, subsequently, Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 1281/2006—1) concerning the registration of the word mark ‘AIRSHOWER’ as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hansgrohe AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-8/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Bank Kargoshaei and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Legitimate expectations — Review of the restrictive measures adopted — Error of assessment — Equal treatment — Legal basis — Essential procedural requirements — Proportionality — Right to property)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Bank Kargoshaei and Others v Council
   (Case T-8/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Legitimate expectations - Review of the restrictive measures adopted - Error of assessment - Equal treatment - Legal basis - Essential procedural requirements - Proportionality - Right to property)
   2013/C 325/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bank Kargoshaei (Tehran, Iran); Bank Melli Iran Investment Company (Tehran); Bank Melli Iran Printing and Publishing Company (Tehran); Cement Investment & Development Co. (Tehran); Mazandaran Cement Company (Tehran); Melli Agro-chemical Company (Tehran); Shomal Cement Co. (Tehran) (represented initially by L. Defalque and S. Woog, and subsequently by L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment in part of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1); of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71); of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11); and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1); and, secondly, for annulment of any future regulation or decision in force as at the date of closure of the oral procedure which supplements or amends any of the contested measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bank Kargoshaei, Bank Melli Iran Investment Company, Bank Melli Iran Printing and Publishing Company, Cement Investment & Development Co., Mazandaran Cement Company, Melli Agro-chemical Company and Shomal Cement Co.;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-329/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France)) — Alexandre Achughbabian v Préfet du Val-de-Marne (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — National legislation making provision, in the event of illegal staying, for a sentence of imprisonment and a fine)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France)) — Alexandre Achughbabian v Préfet du Val-de-Marne
   (Case C-329/11) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - National legislation making provision, in the event of illegal staying, for a sentence of imprisonment and a fine)
   2012/C 32/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alexandre Achughbabian

      Defendant: Préfet du Val-de-Marne

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Paris — Interpretation of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Compatibility of national legislation providing for the imposition of a penalty of imprisonment on a third-country national on the sole ground of his illegal entry or residence in national territory — Detention for the purposes of deportation — Possible illegal detention

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as

               —

               precluding legislation of a Member State repressing illegal stays by criminal sanctions, in so far as that legislation permits the imprisonment of a third-country national who, though staying illegally in the territory of the said Member State and not being willing to leave that territory voluntarily, has not been subject to the coercive measures referred to in Article 8 of that directive and has not, in the event of placing in detention with a view to the preparation and implementation of his removal, reached the expiry of the maximum duration of that detention; and

               —

               not precluding such legislation in so far as the latter permits the imprisonment of a third-country national to whom the return procedure established by the said directive has been applied and who is staying illegally in that territory with no justified ground for non-return.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case T-286/07: Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Torres v OHIM — Torres de Anguix (TORRES de ANGUIX)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/16

         Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Torres v OHIM — Torres de Anguix (TORRES de ANGUIX)
   (Case T-286/07)
   (2007/C 235/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres, S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Torres de Anguix, S.L.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 May 2007 in the case No R 707/2006-2;

               —

               Order expressly that OHIM pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: TORRES DE ANGUIX S.L.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘TORRES de ANGUIX’ for goods and services in Classes 33, 35and 39 (application No 3283652)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘TORRES’ (Community trade mark No 1752526) for goods in class 33 and various other Community, national and international trade marks which include the word ‘TORRES’ alone or accompanied by other words or graphics.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration of the mark applied for refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and decision under appeal which refused the mark applied for annulled.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) given that there is a likelihood of confusion of the conflicting marks.

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


title: Case C-292/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg (Regional Court, Regensburg) lodged on 11 June 2010 — Cornelia Buschmann v Cornelius de Visser

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg (Regional Court, Regensburg) lodged on 11 June 2010 — Cornelia Buschmann v Cornelius de Visser
   (Case C-292/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/38
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Regensburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cornelia Buschmann

      Defendant: Cornelius de Visser

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Does the first half-sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (‘TEU’), in conjunction with the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘CEU’), or other European legislation preclude ‘service by public notice’ under national law (pursuant to Paragraphs 185 to 188 of the German Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure), through the posting for one month of the notification of the service on the notice board of the court ordering the notification) if the opponent in a civil action (in its very early stages) gives an address in the territory of the European Union (‘Union territory’) on his website, but service is not possible because the defendant’s whereabouts in the Union territory are not known and it cannot otherwise be established where he is currently residing?

               (b)

               If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative:

                           Must the national court refuse, in accordance with past case-law of the Court (most recently Case C-341/06 …), to apply national rules permitting service by public notice even if national law grants such power of rejection only to the (German) Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court)?
                           and

                           Should the applicant communicate to the court a new address at which a further attempt can be made to serve the application on the defendant to enable her to assert her rights, since under national law the trial could not be conducted without service by public notice and without knowledge of the defendant’s whereabouts?

               (c)

               If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative: Is, in the present case, a default judgment pursuant to Paragraph 331 of the Zivilprozessordnung, that is an enforcement order for uncontested claims within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (‘Regulation No 805/2004’), precluded by Article 26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 44/2001’), in so far as an order is sought for the payment of compensation for pain and suffering amounting to at least EUR 20 000,00 plus interest and legal costs of EUR 1 419,19 plus interest?
               The following questions are referred subject to the condition that it is possible for the applicant to continue the action in accordance with the Court’s answers to Questions 2(a) to 2(c):

               (d)

               Having regard to Article 4(1) and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, is that Regulation also applicable in cases in which the whereabouts of the defendant in a civil action, who has been sued for an injunction, information and compensation for pain and suffering because of the operation of a website, who is (presumed to be) a Union citizen within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 9 TEU, are unknown, it therefore being conceivable, but by no means certain, that he is currently residing outside the Union territory and also outside the residual treaty area governed by the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, done at Lugano on 16 September 1988 (‘Lugano Convention’), and the precise location of the server on which the website is stored is also unknown, although it seems logical to assume that it is in the Union territory?

               (e)

               If Regulation No 44/2001 is applicable in this case, is the phrase ‘the place where the harmful event … may occur’ in Article 5(3) of that Regulation to be interpreted as meaning, in the event of (possible) infringements of personality by means of content on an Internet website,
               that the person concerned (‘applicant’) may also bring an action for an injunction, for information and for compensation for pain and suffering against the operator of the website (‘defendant’), irrespective of where the defendant is established (in or outside the Union territory), in the courts of any Member State in which the website may be accessed,
               or
               is it necessary, in order for the courts of a Member State in which the defendant is not established or there are no indications that he is resident to have jurisdiction, that there be a special connection between the contested content of the website and the State of the court seised (domestic connecting factor) going beyond technically possible accessibility?

               (f)

               If such a special domestic connecting factor is necessary: What are the criteria which determine that connection?
               Does it depend on whether the intention of the operator is that the contested website is specifically (also) targeted at Internet users in the State of the court seised or is it sufficient for the information which may be accessed on the website to have an objective connection to the State of the court seised, in the sense that in the circumstances of the individual case, in particular on the basis of the content of the website to which the applicant objects, a collision of conflicting interests — the applicant’s interest in respect of her right to protection of personality and the operator’s interest in the design of his website — may actually have occurred or may occur in the State of the court seised or has occurred, in that one or more acquaintances of the person whose right to protection of personality has been infringed have taken note of the content of the website?

               (g)

               Does the determination of the special domestic connecting factor depend upon the number of times the website to which the applicant objects has been accessed from the State of the court seised?

               (h)

               If the referring court has jurisdiction for the action according to the above questions: Do the legal principles laid down in the Court’s judgment in Case C-68/93 … also apply in the case described above?

               (i)

               If no special domestic connecting factor is required in order to make a positive finding on jurisdiction, or if it is sufficient for the presumption of such a special domestic connecting factor that the information to which the applicant objects has an objective connection to the State of the court seised, in the sense that in the circumstances of the individual case, in particular on the basis of the content of the website to which the applicant objects, a collision of conflicting interests may actually have occurred or may occur in the State of the court seised or has occurred, in that one of more acquaintances of the person whose right to protection of personality has been infringed have taken note of the content of the website, and the existence of a special domestic connecting factor may be presumed without requiring a finding as to a minimum number of times the website to which the applicant objects has been accessed from the State of the court seised, or Regulation No 44/2001 is in no way applicable to the present case:

                           Must Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) be interpreted as meaning that those provisions should be attributed with a conflict-of-laws character in the sense that for the field of private law also they require the exclusive application of the law applicable in the country of origin, to the exclusion of national conflict-of-law rules,
                           Or

                           do those provisions operate as a corrective at a substantive law level, by means of which the substantive law outcome under the law declared to be applicable pursuant to the national conflict-of-law rules is altered and adjusted to the requirements of the country of origin?

               (j)

               In the event that Article 3(1) and (2) of the Directive on electronic commerce have a conflict-of-laws character:
               Do those provisions merely require the exclusive application of the substantive law applicable in the country of origin or also the application of the conflict-of-law rules applicable there, with the consequence that a renvoi under the law of the country of origin to the law of the target State remains possible?

               (k)

               In the event that Article 3(1) and (2) of the Directive on electronic commerce have a conflict-of-laws character:
               Must the designation of the place of establishment of the service provider be geared to his (presumed) current whereabouts, his whereabouts when the publication of the photographs of the applicant first began or the (presumed) location of the server on which the website is stored?


title: Case T-164/99: Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy against the Council of the European Union

text:
2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/21
According to the applicant, because of the classic nature of the          the Staff Committee of 22 October 1997 and of paragraph 2
contested aid and the fact that it is clearly operating and rescue        of Article 2 of the General Notice for Election published by
aid, the said period of two months may be considered                      the electoral office on 27 January 1999, inasmuch as 21 per-
reasonable.                                                               sons not qualifying as electors under the applicable rules voted
                                                                          in the contested elections and those votes may have affected
                                                                          the results as regards the allocation of the number of seats on
(1) OJ C 368 of 23.12.94.                                                 the various lists.
(2) OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997.
                                                                          They also plead infringement of the first paragraph of Article 1
                                                                          and Article 4 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, of the
                                                                          second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 6 of the Rules
                                                                          laying down the composition and operation of the Staff
                                                                          Committee, of Article 14(b) and (c) of the procedure adopted
                                                                          by the general meeting on 19 January 1999 for the election of
                                                                          the Brussels section of the Staff Committee, and of the second
Action brought on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele,                  paragraph of Article 2 and the second paragraph of Article 4
Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux against the                       of the General Notice for Election in that 27 postal votes
         Commission of the European Communities                           arrived out of time because the electors concerned received
                                                                          their ballot papers late.
                          (Case T-162/99)
                                                                          Lastly, the applicants plead infringement of the final paragraph
                          (1999/C 281/40)                                 of Article 14 of the Rules laying down the composition and
                                                                          operation of the Staff Committee and of Article 32 of the
                                                                          internal rules of the Brussels local staff committee of 14 April
                                                                          1990, in that the appointments to the Central Staff Committee
                    (Language of the case: French)                        and to the other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and
                                                                          administrative bodies were made by a local staff committee
An action against the Commission of European Communities                  constituted in accordance with the results of elections which
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            were vitiated by irregularities. In the applicants’ view, those
Communities on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele,                     irregularities may have altered the distribution of seats as
Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux, residing in Brussels,            between the different lists, and may consequently have altered
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                  the distribution of seats on the Central Staff Committee and in
address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue            the other administrative bodies or organs set up under the
Heinrich Heine.                                                           Staff Regulations appointments to which were to be made by
                                                                          the local staff committee.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul the elections held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to
    the Staff Committee of the local Brussels section and the
    various appointments and proposals for appointments to
    the Central Staff Committee and to the other organs set up
    under the Staff Regulations and administrative bodies                 Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy against the
    made by that committee following those elections;                                     Council of the European Union
— in so far as may be necessary: first, take note of the refusal
    by the Commission to annul the aforementioned elections                                        (Case T-164/99)
    and declare that the Staff Committee of the local Brussels
    section, constituted in accordance with the results of the                                    (1999/C 281/41)
    elections held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999, as proclaimed
    by the electoral office on 23 March 1999, has not been
    validly constituted and, consequently, that the appoint-                                 (Language of the case: French)
    ments and or proposals for appointments made by that
    committee to the Central Staff Committee and to the                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
    other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    administrative bodies are invalid; and, second, annul the             Communities on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy, residing at
    rejection of the complaints lodged by the applicants;                 Grimbergen (Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — acknowledge the illegality of the decision of the Council of
                                                                              1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrangements for
The applicants plead, first, infringement of the fourth para-                 the integration of the Schengen Secretarial into the General
graph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations of                    Secretariat of the Council, and consequently annul the
officials, of Article 7 of the Conditions of employment of other              same;
servants of the European Communities, of Articles 4(2) and 6
of the Rules laying down the composition and operation of                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.10.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           when fitted by the second applicant (7Q7) with new engines
                                                                          having a by-pass ratio of less than three may not be placed on
The contested decision is the same as that in issue in Case               EU registers as from 4th May 2000 and even if registered
T-107/99 Garcia Retortillo (1). The pleas in law and main                 outside the EU may not be operated to and from EU airports
arguments are the same as those advanced in that case.                    as from 1st April 2002. None of these re-engined 707s would
                                                                          be ready for registration in the EU before 4th May 2000. This
                                                                          is despite the fact that these re-engined 707s would meet noise
The applicant pleads, in support of his application, infringe-            pollution emission standards applicable to other aeroplanes
ment of Article 7 of Protocol No 2 annexed to the Treaty of               whose continued operation is permitted under the contested
Amsterdam, of Articles 27 and 39 of the Staff Regulations and             regulation.
of the principle of non-discrimination, together, in the present
case, with an error of law committed by the Council in the
formulation of the decision of 1 May 1999. That error consists,
in particular, in the absence of any objective justification for          The applicants contend in this regard that the by-pass criterion
using the date of 2 October 1997 as a criterion for taking into           does not determine the noise or pollution emissions of any
consideration the names of persons working in the Schengen                re-engined aeroplane. The use of a by-pass ratio criterion does
Secretariat for the purposes of their integration into the said           not relate to any justifiable technical objective and should be
General Secretariat, and also in the manner in which the                  considered as arbitrary. Moreover, the regulation imposes no
applicant’s contract for an indefinite period was brought to an           noise standard and would prejudice Omega’s aeroplanes even
end.                                                                      if they were totally silent. They submit that Omega’s aeroplanes
                                                                          as re-engined by 7Q7 will be less, or at least no more, noisy
                                                                          than many aeroplanes permitted to continue in operation in
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                            the EU under the contested regulation, and that they will also
                                                                          produce less pollution emissions than other aircraft that will
                                                                          be allowed to operate for many years in the EU.
                                                                          On this basis, the applicants state that the contested regulation:
Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Omega Air Limited and
Seven Q Seven Inc. against the Council of the European                    — reduces immediately the value of Omega’s fleet of 7Q7 by
                               Union                                           some 30 % at least;
                          (Case T-165/99)                                 — writes off both applicants’ substantial investment in the
                                                                               7Q7 test and recertification programme;
                         (1999/C 281/42)
                                                                          — prevents the implementation of the applicants’ existing
                                                                               re-engining programme for five aircraft which has been
                   (Language of the case: English)                             under way since 1992, and their planned re-engining of
                                                                               other aircraft, with a consequential loss of increased
An action against the Council of the European Union was                        revenue for engined aircraft with the extended life of those
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     aircraft; and
Communities on 9 July 1999 by Omega Air Limited and Seven
Q Seven Inc., represented by David Vaughan QC, Aidan                      — causes the applicants loss and damage, including costs
Robertson and Michael Offer, with an address for service in                    incurred in attempting to ensure that the contested regu-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz & Kremer, 6 rue Heine.                     lation did not exclude aircraft re-engined with engines
                                                                               having a by-pass ratio of less than three.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 in so far as it
    applies to re-engined aircraft having a by-pass ratio of less         The applicants contend that the contested regulation infringes
    than three;                                                           the obligation under Article 235 of the Treaty to state the
                                                                          reasons for measures, the general principles of non-
— award damages pursuant to Articles 235 and 288(2) of the                discrimination, proportionality and protection of the legit-
    EC Treaty;                                                            imate expectations, as well as the General Agreement of Tariffs
                                                                          and Trade, the Agreement of Technical Barriers to Trade and
— order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.                         the Chicago Convention.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the              (1) OJ 1999 L 115 of 4 May 1999, p. 1.
Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1), in so far as it
prohibits aircraft which have been re-engined with engines
having a by-pass ratio of less than three but allowing them if
the by-pass ratio is three or more. As a result of that regulation,
Boeing 707 aeroplanes owned by the first applicant (Omega)


title: Case C-338/05 P: Appeal brought on  19 September 2005  by le Front National, M.F. Stirbois, B. Gollnisch, C. Lang, J.C. Martinez, Ph. Claeys, K. Dillen and M. Borghezio against the judgment delivered on  11 July 2005  by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-17/04 between Le Front National and Others and the European Parliament and the Counsel of the European Union

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/9

         Appeal brought on 19 September 2005 by le Front National, M.F. Stirbois, B. Gollnisch, C. Lang, J.C. Martinez, Ph. Claeys, K. Dillen and M. Borghezio against the judgment delivered on 11 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-17/04 between Le Front National and Others and the European Parliament and the Counsel of the European Union
   (Case C-338/05 P)
   (2005/C 315/16)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-17/04 between Le Front National and Others and the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2005 by Le Front National and Others, represented by W. De Saint-Just, avocat.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   set aside, with all the legal consequences flowing therefrom, the judgment under appeal dated 11 July 2005.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellants, le Front National, a political party, and European members of various national political groupings (Front National, Lega Nord, Vlaams Blok) brought an application before the Court of First Instance for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (1), in particular on the grounds that it is unlawful, it infringes the principles of equality, transparency, political pluralism and subsidiarity and that there is a presumption of abuse of process.
   In the judgment under appeal of 11 July 2005, the Court of First Instance decided, firstly (paragraph 48), that the Front National is directly affected by the contested regulation. However, the Court of First Instance decided (paragraph 52) that those appellants who are elected members of political groupings are not themselves directly concerned by the contested regulation. It is, however, clear that those members, who are elected representatives, can be distinguished by their activities and involvement within their political parties from ‘any other citizen’. They therefore have grounds on which to challenge a measure which would undermine the rights pertaining to and the rules governing the political groupings of which they are members. The Cour of First Instance decided, however (paragraph 66), that the Front National is not individually concerned by the contested regulation.
   On this point, the Court of First Instance accepted the European Parliament's arguments that Article 4 of that regulation was not intended to be immediately applicable and thus ‘there is therefore no effect flowing directly from Regulation 2004/2003 as regards the Front National’.
   Nevertheless, Article 13 of that regulation states that ‘Articles 4 to 10 shall apply from the date of the opening of the first session held after the European Parliament elections of June 2004’. In view of the fact that the Front National submits a list of candidates in all the major French regions for the European elections and that there is no doubt that some of its candidates will be elected in view of the fact that it is a body with a high level of representation within France, it would not be an extrapolation or ‘speculation’ to state that the Front National will have representatives in the European Parliament. On this view, it is directly concerned by the provisions of the regulation on ‘the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding’.

      (1)  (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1).


title: Case T-719/15 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2015 by LP against the Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 September 2015 in Case F-73/14 LP v Europol

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/37

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2015 by LP against the Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 September 2015 in Case F-73/14 LP v Europol
   (Case T-719/15 P)
   (2016/C 059/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: LP (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Police Office (Europol)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Set aside the order of 28 September 2015 in Case F-73/14 and give a ruling on the case or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the cost of both parties

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested order is vitiated by several errors of law and infringes EU law, in particular in respect of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, the duty of care and the manifest error of assessment.


title: Case C-86/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — United Kingdom) — Future Health Technologies Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care and closely related activities — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Collection, testing and processing of umbilical cord blood — Storage of stem cells — Possible future therapeutic use — Transactions comprising a bundle of features and acts)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — United Kingdom) — Future Health Technologies Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-86/09) (1)

   (Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(b) and (c) - Hospital and medical care and closely related activities - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Collection, testing and processing of umbilical cord blood - Storage of stem cells - Possible future therapeutic use - Transactions comprising a bundle of features and acts)
   2010/C 221/18
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Future Health Technologies Limited

      Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — Interpretation of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Concepts of ‘hospital and medical care and closely related activities’ and ‘the provision of medical care’ — Services for collecting, transporting, analysing blood and stem cells from the umbilical cord of newborn children with a view to possible medical treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Where activities consisting in the dispatch of a kit for collecting blood from the umbilical cord of newborn children and in the testing and processing of that blood and, where appropriate, in the storage of stem cells contained in it for possible future therapeutic use, are intended only to ensure that a particular resource will be available for medical treatment in the uncertain event that treatment becomes necessary but not, as such, to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders, such activities, whether taken together or separately, do not come within the concept of ‘hospital and medical care’ in Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, or within that of ‘the provision of medical care’ in Article 132(1)(c) of that directive. It would be otherwise, as regards the analysis of umbilical cord blood, only if such analysis were actually intended to enable a medical diagnosis to be made, which it is for the referring court, if need be, to determine.

               2.

               The concept of activities ‘closely related’ to ‘hospital and medical care’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112, is to be interpreted as not covering activities, such as those in question in the main proceedings, consisting in the dispatch of a kit for collecting blood from the umbilical cord of newborn children and in the testing and processing of that blood and, where appropriate, in the storage of stem cells contained in it for possible future therapeutic use to which those activities are merely potentially related and which has not been performed, commenced or yet envisaged.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 01.05.2009.


title: Case F-78/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2008 — Boudova and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations — Act adversely affecting a party — Admissibility of the action)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/61

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2008 — Boudova and Others v Commission
   (Case F-78/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations - Act adversely affecting a party - Admissibility of the action)
   (2008/C 223/115)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Stanislava Boudova and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision rejecting the requests for review of the classification in grade of the applicants, former auxiliary agents appointed officials after they passed open competitions for grades B5/B4 — Application for damages
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007, p. 42.