title: Case C-271/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Techniko Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE) and Others v Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis, Ipourgos Metaforon kai Epikinonion, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon (Air transport — Regulation No 2042/2003 — Technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation — Continuing airworthiness of aircraft — Approval of members of staff involved in tasks of inspection — Qualifications required)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Techniko Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE) and Others v Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis, Ipourgos Metaforon kai Epikinonion, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon
   (Case C-271/11) (1)

   (Air transport - Regulation No 2042/2003 - Technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation - Continuing airworthiness of aircraft - Approval of members of staff involved in tasks of inspection - Qualifications required)
   2013/C 9/25
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Techniko Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE), Sillogos Ellinon Diplomatouchon Aeronafpigon Michanikon (SEA), Alexandros Tsiapas, Antonios Ikonomopoulos, Apostolos Batategas, Vasilios Kouloukis, Georgios Ikonomopoulos, Ilias Iliadis, Ioannis Tertigkas, Panellinios Sillogos Aerolimenikon Ipiresias Politikis Aeroporias, Eleni Theodoridou, Ioannis Karnesiotis, Alexandra Efthimiou, Eleni Saatsaki

      Defendants: Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis, Ipourgos Metaforon kai Epikinonion, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon,

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks (OJ 2003 L 135, p. 1) — Compatibility of national legislation dividing the task of inspecting aircraft among four categories of inspectors (Airworthiness and Avionics Inspectors, Flight Operations Inspectors, Cabin Safety Inspectors and Licensing Inspectors)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2 and provision M.B.902 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks must be interpreted as meaning that it is open to the Member States, when adopting measures to complement the implementation of that regulation, to distribute, within the competent authority provided for by provision M.B.902, the tasks of inspection of aircraft airworthiness among a number of specialised categories of inspectors.

               2.

               Provision M.B.902(b), point 1, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that any individual who is responsible for inspecting any aspect whatsoever of the airworthiness of aircraft must have five years experience covering all aspects involved in ensuring the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, and those aspects alone.

               3.

               Provision M.B.902(b), point 1, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may determine the circumstances in which the experience of at least five years in continuing airworthiness which must be possessed by the staff responsible for reviewing aircraft airworthiness has been acquired. In particular, Member States may choose to take into account experience acquired by work within an aircraft maintenance workshop, to recognise experience acquired during workplace-based practical training during aeronautical studies or also experience linked to having performed the duties of an airworthiness inspector in the past.

               4.

               Provision M.B.902(b) of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as not making any distinction between holders of an aircraft maintenance licence, within the meaning of Annex III to that regulation, headed ‘Part-66’, and holders of a higher education degree.

               5.

               Provision M.B.902(b) of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that only those individuals who have first undergone all the education and training required by that provision and whose knowledge and competencies on the conclusion of such training programmes have been subject to appraisal may perform the duties of inspectors of the airworthiness of aircraft.

               6.

               Provision M.B.902(b), point 4, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that only those individuals who have previously occupied a position with appropriate responsibilities, demonstrating both their capacity to carry out all the necessary technical controls and also the capacity to assess whether or not the results of those controls permit the issue of documents certifying the airworthiness of the inspected aircraft may perform the duties of inspectors of the airworthiness of aircraft.

               7.

               Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of Member States are under no obligation to provide that the individuals who were performing the duties of inspecting aircraft airworthiness at the date when that regulation entered into force are to continue, automatically and without any selection procedure, to perform such duties.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 1997 in Case C-261/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Frosinone): Rosalba Palmisani v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Council Directive 80/987/EEC - Liability of a Member State arising from belated transposition of a directive - Adequate reparation - Limitation period)

text:
C 271 /2                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6 . 9 . 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber )                                                     of 17 July 1997
                           of 10 July 1997                             in Case C-28/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam ): A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur
in Case C-261/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 (')
the Pretura Circondariale, Frosinone ): Rosalba Palmisani              (Article 177 — Jurisdiction of the Court — National
   v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS ) (M           legislation       adopting     Community provisions              —
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of               Transposition — Directive 90/434/EEC — Merger by
                                                                              exchange of shares — Tax evasion or avoidance)
the insolvency of their employer — Council Directive 80/
987/EEC — Liability of a Member State arising from                                               ( 97/C 271 /03 )
belated transposition of a directive — Adequate reparation
                        — Limitation period)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                            ( 97/C 271 /02
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                  published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-28/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, for
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
           published in the European Court Reports)                    that court between A. Leur-Bloem and Inspecteur der
                                                                       Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 — on the
                                                                       interpretation of Articles 2 ( d ) and 11 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council
                                                                       Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
In Case C-261 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions,
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale (District              transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning
Magistrate's Court), Frosinone ( Italy ), for a preliminary            companies of different Member States ( OJ L 225 , 20 . 8 .
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                    1990, p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
between Rosalba Palmisani and Istituto Nazionale della                 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) — on the interpretation of                 Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon ( Presidents of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty and of the principle of State               Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
liability for loss or damage caused to individuals by a                Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
breach of Community law attributable to the State — the                Jann ( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G.
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                Jacobs, Advocate General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O.                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges;                 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled :
G. Cosmas, Advocate General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 1997,
in which it has ruled :                                                1 . The Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 177
                                                                            of the EC Treaty to interpret Community law where
                                                                            the situation in question is not governed directly by
                                                                            Community law but the national legislature, in
Community law, as it stands at present, does not preclude                   transposing the provisions of a directive into domestic
a Member State from requiring any action for reparation                     law, has chosen to apply the same treatment to purely
of the loss or damage sustained as a result of the belated                  internal situations and to those governed by the
transposition of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of                            directive, so that it has aligned its domestic legislation
20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the                     to Community law.
Member States relating to the protection of employees in
the event of the insolvency of their employer to be
brought within a limitation period of one year from the                2 . ( a ) Article 2 (d) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of
date of its transposition into national law, provided that                       23 July 1990, on the common system of taxation
that procedural requirement is no less favourable than                           applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets
procedural requirements in respect of similar actions of a                       and exchanges of shares concerning companies of
domestic nature.                                                                 different Member States, does not require the
                                                                                acquiring company, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 2 (h) of the Directive, to carry on business
(') OJ C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                                  itself or there to be a permanent merger, from the
                                                                                financial and economic point of view, of the
                                                                                business of two companies into a single unit.
                                                                                Similarly, the fact that the same natural person
                                                                                who was the sole shareholder and director of the


title: Case C-369/10 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-108/09: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Educa Borras, S.A.

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/10

         Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-108/09: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Educa Borras, S.A.
   (Case C-369/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 260/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ravensburger AG (represented by: H. Harte-Bavendamm, M. Goldmann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras, S.A.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               allow the Appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 (Case T-108/09);

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 January 2009 (Case R 305/2008-2) and, as appropriate, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 3 September 2006 (Case 1107C);

               —

               (as appropriate) remit the case to the OHIM for fresh consideration;

               —

               order the Intervener and the OHIM to pay the Appellant's costs of this Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

               Distortion of evidence by misrepresenting the Appellant's factual statements regarding the list of goods of the Community trade mark in question by asserting that it was ‘not disputed in the present case that the goods for which the mark at issue was registered include, in particular, memory games’.

               2.

               Distortion of evidence by applying Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and application of a flawed and overly restrictive test in assessing the descriptive character of a word mark, namely Community trade mark registration No 1 203 629‘MEMORY’.

               3.

               Distortion of evidence by applying Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and application of a flawed and overly restrictive test in assessing the lack of distinctiveness of a word mark, namely Community Trade Mark registration No 1 203 629‘MEMORY’.

               4.

               Distortion of evidence by almost exclusively relying on assumed linguistic usage in distant non-European countries.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case T-297/09: Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EASA

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/18

         Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EASA
   (Case T-297/09)
   2009/C 233/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the EASA’s decisions to select the bids of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders EASA.2009.OP.02 Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3 and Lot 5 on ICT services (OJ 2009/S 22-030588) as second and third contractor in the cascade mechanism, communicated to the applicant by four separate letters dated 12 May 2009, 8 July 2009, 13 July 2009 and 15 July 2009 and all further related decisions of EASA including the one to award the contract to the successful contractors;

               —

               order the EASA to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 6 100 000;

               —

               order the EASA to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to select its bids submitted in response to a call for an open tender for ITC services (EASA.2009.OP.02) as second and third contractor in the cascade mechanism and to award the contract to the successful contractors. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration and equal treatment as it failed to observe the exclusion criteria provided for by Articles 93(1) and 94 of the financial regulation (1) by not excluding from the tender proceeding one of the members of the winning consortium being accused by national authorities and even accepting to be guilty for illegal activities and specifically for fraud, corruption, bribery, in the context of contract awarded from public authorities in the European Union and internationally, as well as for falsifying its books and one other winning contractor being in serious breach of its contractual obligations in its relations with the European Commission. By doing so, the defendant infringed as well Articles 133a and 134 of the implementing rules (2) and Article 45 of directive 2004/18/CE (3).
   Furthermore, the applicant invokes the defendant’s alleged professional misconduct arising from the potential usage of non WTO/GPA subcontractors by one of the winning tenderers.
   Second, the applicant submits that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and that it failed to state reasons in breach of the financial regulation and its implementing rules as well as in breach of directive 2004/18/CE (3) and of Article 253 EC. It states that the defendant also infringed the principle of equal treatment as one of the winning tenderers had not complied with the tender specifications.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 4 March 1996 in Case T-392/94: Diarmuid Rossa Phelan v. Council of the European Union (No need to give a decision)

text:
 No C 158 / 14        EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
 Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                                of 21 March 1996
 of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission
 of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves             in Case T-161/95 : Lino Liao v. Council of the European
 Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for annulment,                                      Union (')
 first, of the decision adopted by the defendant on                  (Officials — Action for annulment of a staff report — Act
 24 November 1993 ( i ) withdrawing the household                   adversely affecting an official — Preparatory act — Action
 allowance and the allowance for a person treated as a                              for damages — Inadmissible)
 dependent child and ( ii ) providing for the recovery of the                                  ( 96/C 158/36 )
 allegedly undue payments made in respect of those
 allowances and , second, of the decision adopted by the
 defendant on 26 January 1994 laying down detailed                                 (Language of the case: French)
 measures for the repayment of the sums to be recovered
 pursuant to the aforesaid decision of 24 November 1993 —           In Case T-161 /95 : Lino Liao, an official of the Council of the
 the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:        European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
 R. Schintgen , President, and R. García-Valdecasas and             Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and Constantin Nickis, of the
J. Azizi, Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April 1996 , in          the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
which it :                                                          Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga Fano
                                                                    and Marie-Jeanne Vernier ) — application for annulment of
 1 , dismises the action;                                           the Decision of the Council of 19 May 1 995 , which was
                                                                    adopted for the purposes of drawing up the applicant's staff
                                                                    report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 , and
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     for compensation for the material and non-material loss
                                                                    allegedly suffered by him — the Court of First Instance
 (M OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  ( Second Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President,
                                                                    and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                    Registrar, made an order on 21 March 1996, the operative
                                                                    part of which is as follows :
                                                                    1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 4 March 1996                              2 . The patties are ordered to bear their own costs.
in Case T-3 92/94 : Diarmuid Rossa Phelan v. Council of the
                      European Union (')                            (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                 (No need to give a decision)
                         ( 96/C 158/35 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Action brought on 22 February 1996 by J. Langdon Limited
In Case T-392/94 : Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, residing in Bella           against the Commission of the European Communities
Vista ( Ireland ), represented by Desmond O'Neill,
Barrister-at-Law, of the Bar of Ireland, v. Council of the                                  ( Case T-22/96 )
European Union ( Agents : Michael Bishop and Diego Canga                                      ( 96/C 158/37 )
Fano ) — application for the annulment of the Council
Decision of 1 6 September 1 994 not to admit the applicant to                     (Language of the case: English)
Open Competition Council/A/338 on the ground that the
application form was submitted out of time and for an order
that the Council pay him damages — the Court ( Fourth              An action against the Commission of the European
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh            Communities was brought before the Court of First
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung, made an order         Instance of the European Communities on 22 February
on 4 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as                 1996 by J. Langdon Limited, represented by Patrick
follows :                                                          O'Brien, Solicitor, and Patrick McCann, Barrister, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at Faltz & Associés , 6 rue
                                                                   Heine .
1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
2 . Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                   — annul the Commission's Decision C ( 95 ) 2726 final of
(M OJ No C 400 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       3 November 1995 adressed to Ireland;
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case T-246/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2008 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark REVERIE — Earlier Community figurative mark Revert — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2008 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE)
   (Case T-246/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark REVERIE - Earlier Community figurative mark Revert - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 158/25)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Redcats SA (Roubaix France) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manuel Revert & Cía, SA (Onteniente, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2006 (Case R 171/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Manuel Revert & Cía, SA, and Redcats SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Redcats SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-433/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2016 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia S.r.l.

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2016 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia S.r.l.
   (Case C-433/16)
   (2016/C 410/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

      Respondent: Acacia S.r.l.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, can an action to contest the jurisdiction of the national court seised that is brought before that court as a preliminary matter but in the alternative to other preliminary procedural objections and nevertheless before issues of substance are raised be interpreted as acceptance of the jurisdiction of that court?

               2.

               Must the absence of provision in Article 82[(5)] of Regulation No 6/2002 for alternative jurisdictions to that of the defendant as stipulated in Article 82(1) of that regulation for cases relating to negative declarations be interpreted as implying the attribution of exclusive jurisdiction for such cases?

               3.

               Is it also necessary, in order to resolve the question posed in [the preceding] paragraph …, to take account of the interpretation of the rules on exclusive jurisdiction in Regulation No 44/2001, and in particular in Article 22, which provides for such jurisdiction, inter alia in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks and designs but not in cases regarding negative declarations, and in Article 24, which provides for the possibility that the defendant may accept a different jurisdiction, except where jurisdiction is derived from other provisions of the regulation, thereby establishing the jurisdiction of the court seised by the applicant?

               4.

               Is the approach adopted by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 25 October 2012 in Folien Fischer and Fofitec, C-133/11, EU:C:2012:664, with regard to the applicability of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 of a general and absolute nature applicable to every action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict, including those for a declaration of non-infringement of Community designs, and hence in the present case is it the court referred to in Article 81 of Regulation No 6/2002 or that referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 that has jurisdiction, or may the applicant opt for one or other of the possible jurisdictions?

               5.

               If actions for abuse of a dominant position and unfair competition are brought in the context of a case concerning Community designs with which they are connected, in that their admissibility presupposes prior admissibility of the application for a negative declaration, can they be heard together with that case by the same court in accordance with a broad interpretation of Article 28(3) of Regulation No 44/2001?

               6.

               Do the two actions referred to in [the preceding] paragraph … constitute a case of tort, delict or quasi-delict, and, if so, may they affect the applicability of Regulation No 44/2001 (Article 5(3)) or of Regulation No [6/2002] to the present case as regards jurisdiction?


title: Case C-394/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014  — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-394/14)
   2014/C 372/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sandy Siewert, Emma Siewert, Nele Siewert

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

               2.

               If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

               3.

               Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

      (1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 8 November 1996 by Mario Costacurta against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-177/96)

text:
 11.1.97              I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 9/ 19
 Action brought on 4 November 1996 by Georges Berthu                  Action brought on 8 November 1996 by Mario
    against the Commission of the European Communities                Costacurta against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         ( Case T-175/96 )
                                                                                ( Case T- 177/96 )
                            ( 97/C 9/34
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/35 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 4 November
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 November
 1996 by Georges Berthu, residing at Chelles ( France ),
                                                                      1996 by Mario Costacurta, residing in Luxembourg,
 represented by Alexandre Varaut, of the Paris Bar.
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxemburg at the latter's
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Chambers, 16 avenue Marie-Therese.
— declare unlawful the decision of the Commission of                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
      16 October 1996 proposing to the Council a
      Regulation laying down a number of provisions                   — annul the decision of the Commission 's administration
      relating to the introduction of the European currency.              of 14 November 1995 , confirmed by express decision
                                                                          of the Commission of 22 July 1996, refusing the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       applicant's requests for transfers of Bfrs 60 000 per
                                                                          month, with application of the weightings for Zaire,
                                                                          for the period from March 1993 to December 1995 ,
The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament, is                    and for transfers of Bfrs 1 00 000 for the period from
opposed to the change of name of the future European                      January to August 1996,
currency from ecu to Euro, as mentioned in a proposal for
a Council Regulation laying down a number of provisions
relating to the introduction of the Euro, Article 2 of which          — consequently, order the Commission to pay the
provides that 'from 1 January 1999, all references to the                 applicant the balance due when those weightings are
ecu, within the meaning of Article 109g of the EC Treaty                  applied, amounting in total to Bfrs 4 075 352, together
. . . shall be replaced by a reference to the Euro at the rate            with interest at the legal rate with effect from
of Euro 1 for ecu 1 '.                                                    16 February 1996 , the date of the complaint which he
                                                                          submitted     under      Article  90   (2) of  the   Staff
                                                                          Regulations,
The applicant claims that the change of name of the
European currency constitutes, in legal terms, a review of            — order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs
the Treaty which cannot be carried out according to the                   incurred in relation to the proceedings.
procedure chosen by the Commission's proposal for a
Regulation, namely, that of Article 235 of the Treaty.                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Furthermore, in the French version of the Treaty, the
European currency is referred to as the 'Ecu' and that
word is not a series of initials since, in such a case, it            Following his assignment as of 16 February 1993 to the
                                                                      Commission's delegation to Kinshasa ( Zaire ), the
should have been written in upper case. Moreover, if it did
stand for 'European currency unit', there could not be an             applicant took up his duties as administrative and
accent over the letter ' E' in French .                               financial assistant on 26 March 1993 . His assignment to
                                                                      Zaire ended on 31 August 1996 .
The applicant claims, as an additional ancillary point, that          By letter of 22 July 1996 from the Director-General of
the change of name in question conceals more serious                 Personnel and Administration, the applicant's request for
breaches of the letter or spirit of the Treaty. According to         application of the weightings over that period was
the applicant, the name 'ecu' was linked, in the wording             expressly refused.
of Article 105 et seq. of the Treaty, to a relatively uniform
monetary system in which all the Member States                       The applicant contests the decision refusing application of
participated, subject to derogations enabling them to                the weightings to the transfer of part of his salary to
remain outside it .
                                                                     Kinshasa, alleging that it infringed Articles 12 and 13 of
                                                                     Annex X to the Staff Regulations .
On the other hand, the name 'Euro' runs the risk of being
associated with a different system, as yet not totally               The applicant maintains that the Commission impaired his
defined, but of which it is known that the technical                 fundamental and legitimate pecuniary rights, since he
provisions will not coincide with that of its predecessor. In        personally suffered a very considerable loss of purchasing
particular, the future 'Euro' would bring together                   power. Furthermore, he argues that in his regard the
Members who are radically different from those whose                 Commission failed to fulfil its duty to have regard for the
currencies constitute the ecu basket.                                welfare of officials : first, by publishing the weightings for
                                                                     the period from March 1993 to June 1993 30 months late
 ---pagebreak--- No C 9/20          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 1 . 97
and, secondly, by failing to take all due care or make                   levy due from the applicant or from the partnership of
every effort to be in a position to put forward a proposal               which he formed part, as the case may be, in respect
to the Council concerning the fixing of new weightings for               of the milk produced by them following the expiry of
Zaire for the periods from July 1993 to August 1996 .                    the non-marketing undertaking ( i.e. production in the
                                                                         milk marketing years 1989/1990 to 1995/ 1996
Lastly, the applicant maintains that, in his regard, the                 inclusive ), together with the interest which is due on
Commission acted contrary to the principles of non                      that sum to those entitled to claim payment of the said
discrimination against the applicant and treated him less                supplementary levy from the applicant (5 % as from
favourably than officials in other countries who benefited               1 . September 1996 ),
from weightings in excess of 100 and part of whose
salaries, over the same period, were subject to the                 — order the Community to pay him the sum of
appropriate weightings . Although the data for the period                HF1 58 695 (the sum resulting from the application of
from July 1993 to August 1996 were not entirely reliable                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 over the periods
on account of the looting in Kinshasa , that situation could             following the expiry of the non-marketing
in no circumstances justify discarding the weighting factor              undertaking, during which the applicant or his
indicating that the cost of living over the preceding                    predecessor in title, as the case may be, produced no
months had been more than twice the reference level . For                milk, together with compensatory interest from the
Russia, owing to the same problems in relation to local                  date when the damage arose until the date of
currency, with effect from 1 January 1994 a weighting                    judgment in the Mulder II case ( 19 May 1992 )), with
was fixed on the basis of an economic parity expressed in                interest thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum until
US dollars .                                                             settlement in full, as laid down in the judgment in
                                                                         Mulder II,
                                                                    — order the Community to pay him the sum of
                                                                         HFl 180 322,20, representing the costs of obtaining a
                                                                         substitute reference quantity equal to the reference
Action brought on 11 November 1996 by J. Antonissen                      quantity to which the applicant would have been
against the European Community, represented by the                       entitled pursuant to Article 3a of Regulation ( EEC )
Council and the Commission of the European                               No 857/84 had he, at the time, been operating the
                          Communities                                    holding in respect of which the non-marketing
                       ( Case T-179/96 )                                 undertaking was given by Mr Herbrink in 1979,
                           ( 97/C 9/36 )
                                                                    — order the Community to pay the costs .
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the European Community, represented
by the Council and the Commission of the European                   These proceedings are connected with Case C-98/91
Communities, was brought before the Court of First                  Herbrink ( judgment of the Court of 27 January 1994 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 11 November                 The applicant is the successor of Mr Herbrink. Following
1996 by J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem ( the                    the judgment of the Court, Mr Herbrink was definitively
Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of           refused the allocation of a SLOM quota, on the ground
the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                   that he no longer operated the original SLOM holding;
Luxemburg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue                  the lease in respect of it was not extended, since he was
Guillaume .                                                         not in possession of a milk quota .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that the Community is obliged to make good
    the damage which the applicant has suffered, and may
    suffer in the future, as a result of the refusal to             Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Mireille
    allocate a specific reference quantity to the applicant                   Meskens against the European Parliament
    or his predecessor in title, Mr A. A. Herbrink, since                                    Case T- 194/96 )
    the termination on 17 May 1984 of the non-marketing
    undertaking given by Mr Herbrink pursuant to                                               ( 97/C 9/37 )
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1087/77, on the sole
    ground that, since 1987, for reasons which cannot be                             (Language of the case: French)
    attributed to them, neither the applicant nor Mr
    Herbrink has continued to operate, either wholly or in          An action against the European Parliament was brought
    part, the holding on which Mr Herbrink produced                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
    milk prior to giving the aforementioned non-marketing           Communities on 27 November 1996 by Mireille Meskens,
    undertaking,                                                    residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
                                                                    Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels
— order the Community to pay him the sum of                         Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at the
    HFl 258 565,38 , corresponding to the supplementary             offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL ., 30 rue de Cessange.


title: Case T-322/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2008 — Kenitex-Química v OHIM — Chemicals International (Kenitex TINTAS A qualidade da cor)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2008 — Kenitex-Química v OHIM — Chemicals International (Kenitex TINTAS A qualidade da cor)
   (Case T-322/07) (1)

   (2008/C 327/78)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Regione Toscana against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-180/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an address for service in
                        (First Chamber)                              Luxembourg at the office of Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue de
                                                                     Vianden.
                    of 20 November 1997
      in Case C-188/96 P: Commission of the European                 The applicant claims in particular that the Court should
                     Communities v. V (1)                            annul a note of the Commission (Directorate-General for
 (Officials Ð Removal from post Ð Statement of reasons)              Agriculture) and a Decision in which the Commission
                                                                     withdrew financial aid allocated under the integrated
                          (98/C 7/13)                                Mediterranean programme in respect of project
                                                                     88.20.IT.006.0 (supply of drinking water in Tuscany).
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 1 Octrober 1997 the Court referred the action
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     to the Court of First Instance of the European
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Communities pursuant to Article 47 of the Statute of the
                                                                     Court.
In Case C-188/96 P Commission of the European
Communities represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of the
European Communities (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-40/95,
ECR-SC II-461, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being V, a former                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Protodikio
official of the Commission of the European Communities,              Athinon by order of that court of 24 June 1997 in the
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,                  Case of Dionisios Diamantis against (1) Greek State and
VeÂronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,          (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigrotisis Epikhiriseon
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices                                           (OAE)
of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de Cessange, the Court (First                                   (Case C-373/97)
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, acting for the President
of the First Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and P. Jann                                               (98/C 7/15)
(Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1997, in which it:                                                   European Communities by order of the Protodikio
                                                                     Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens) of 24 June
1. sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance            1997, received at the Court Registry on 31 October 1997,
     of 28 March 1996 in Case T-40/95 V v. Commission                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dionisios Diamantis
     to the extent to which, on the one hand, it annulled            against (1) Greek State and (2) Organismos Ikonomikis
     for inadequacy of the statement of the reasons on               Anasigrotisis     Epikhiriseon     (Organization  for   the
     which it was based the Commission's decision of                 Reconstruction of Undertakings) on the following
     18 January 1995 removing Mr V from his post and,                questions:
     on the other hand, ordered the Commission to pay the
     costs, including those relating to the earlier
     interlocutory proceedings;                                      1. In the specific factual circumstances set out in the
                                                                         grounds of [the order for reference] does a question
2. refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for               arise as to the application, both in law and in
     it to adjudicate on the pleas raised by Mr V at first               substance, of Article 281 of the Civil Code, which
     instance;                                                           concerns abusive exercise of the plaintiff's rights, in
                                                                         relation to Articles 25 (1) and 29 (1) of the Second
                                                                         Directive 77/91/EEC (1)?
3. reserves the costs.
(1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.                                           2. Should the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities find the above plea well-founded in law
                                                                         and in substance, how will that affect the validity of
                                                                         the ministerial decisions increasing and reducing the
                                                                         capital of the company in question, of which the
                                                                         plaintiff happens to be a shareholder, and, by
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Regione Toscana                    extension, are Articles 8 (8) and 10 (1) of Law
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    No 1386/1993 compatible with Community law, in
                                                                         view of the fact that, where Article 281 of the Civil
                       (Case C-180/97)
                                                                         Code does not come into play, it has been held in
                          (98/C 7/14)                                    accordance with the above that those provisions are
                                                                         contrary to the Second Directive?
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of               (1) OJ L 26, 31. 1. 1977, p. 1.
the European Communities on 1 April 1997 by the
Regione Toscana, represented by Vito Vacchi and Lucia


22.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-524/93 (1)
This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The pleas in law and                                      (2000/C 20/55)
main arguments are the same as those in Case T-250/99.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         By order of 25 October 1999, the President of the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the register of Case T-524/93: Patrick Wall v Council of the
                                                                         European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties.
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Total Nederland                     (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
B.V. and Fina Nederland B.V. against the Commission of
                  the European Communities
                         (Case T-252/99)
                          (2000/C 20/54)                                 Removal from the register of Case T-195/94 and
                                                                                T-202/94 (1)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                 (2000/C 20/56)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                  (Language of the case: German)
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Total Neder-
land B.V. and Fina Nederland B.V., respectively established in           By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Rotterdam and The Hague (Netherlands), represented by                    Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and R. Wesseling, of the Hague Bar,               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             the register of Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94: Friedhelm
M. Maître, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                Quiller and Johann Heusmann v Council of the European
                                                                         Union and Commission of the European Communities.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 9.7.1994 and C 218 of 6.8.1994.
(a) order the Commission of the European Communities to
     give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to
     its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
     concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633
     service stations in the region bordering Germany, and
     order the adoption of all such further measures as may be
     necessary;                                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-10/96 (1)
(b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of
                                                                                (2000/C 20/57)
     20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final);
(c) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The pleas in law and               Case T-10/96: Benjamin Laurence Lay v Council of the
main arguments are the same as those in Case T-250/99.                   European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.


title: Case F-114/07: Action brought on 19 October 2007 — Wenning v Europol

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/47

         Action brought on 19 October 2007 — Wenning v Europol
   (Case F-114/07)
   (2007/C 315/91)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Rainer Wenning (The Hague, Netherlands (represented by: G. Vandersanden, C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Europol
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Europol's Director of 21 December 2006 not to prolong the appellant's contract and his reintegration at Europol as from 1 October 2007;

               —

               as consequence, the annulment of the Staff Development and Review Form on which the impugned decision is based;

               —

               the award of compensation for the material and moral prejudice suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision not to prolong the appellant's contract violates the duty of motivation, as it does not contain itself the reasons justifying it. It based on an invalid Staff Development and Review Form.
   The appellant's Staff Report has been drafted in violation of Europol rules on the staff Development and Review Process (Article 28 of Europol Staff Rules and Staff Development and Review Process Guidelines) and it contains many errors of appraisal having led to an error in law.
   The assessment process has been used by the appellant's superiors with the aim to dismiss him, instead than for evaluating him. This constitutes also misuse and abuse of powers.
   The only objective pursued the appellant's superiors was to do not renew his contract, notwithstanding his good performance and the fact that he had been assured he would get a better score than the previous year if his improvements continued. The appellant's had legitimate expectations that his contract would be converted into an indefinite duration one or at least prolonged.
   The impugned decision and the context in which it was delivered are also not in compliance with the principle of proper administration and duty of care, which every administration must show in respect of its staff members.
   It would have been in conformity with both the interest of the service and of the staff member to keep the appellant at Europol. As a matter of fact, the work the appellant was in charge of will continue to be performed. The appellant has continuously showed during the years that he could perform it well, to the satisfaction of his colleagues and also people external to Europol.
   The appellant has also been discriminated in comparison with other colleagues which performed the same way he did and obtained a prolongation of their contract.
   Eventually, the appellant asks compensation for the material and moral prejudice that the impugned decision has caused to him.


title: Action brought on 21 March 1996 by the Portuguese Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-89/96)

text:
No C 145/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18 . 5 . 96
the Landessozialgericht Bayern ( Higher Social Court of                         II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and XI of Council Regulation
Bavaria ) of 2 February 1996 , which was received at the                        ( EEC ) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of
Court Registry on 20 March 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling                     certain textile products from third countries concerning
in the case of Maria Martinez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern on the                   cottage industry and folklore products ( 1 ),
following questions:
    I. Was a Spanish national living in Germany who was                     — order the Commission of the European Communities to
       employed, with various interruptions, until 1986                         pay the costs .
       and later, apart from a short period of employment
       in    1989 ,    received    social   assistance     under  the
       Bundessozialhilfegesetz ( Federal social welfare law,                Pleas in law and main arguments
       ( BSHG )) still in 1993 a worker within the meaning of
       Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 (') or an           — No reason for the retroactive nature of the amendments
       employed person within the meaning of Article 2 in
       conjunction with Article 1 of Regulation ( EEC )                         introduced by Regulation ( EC ) No 3053/95 : the
       No 1408/71 ( 2 )?                                                        reference in the 14th recital of the preamble to the
                                                                                Regulation to the arrangement with India , in particular
                                                                                to the removal of quantitative restrictions on the
  II. Is Erziehungsgeld ( childcare benefit) under the Gesetz                   importation of certain hand loom and folklore products
       iiber die Gewâhrung von Erziehungsgeld und                               originating in the Republic of India, contains nothing
       Erziehungsurlaub ( Law on the grant of childcare                         which justifies the retroactive effect of the amendment
       benefit and child-care leave, ( BErzGG )) a family benefit
                                                                                introduced into Annex VI to Regulation ( EEC )
       within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) ( h ) of Regulation                No 3030/93 . It may not even be assumed that there is a
       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , which Spanish nationals living in
                                                                                reason relating to the effectiveness of the arrangement
       Germany are entitled to in the same way as German
                                                                                inasmuch as that arrangement was not yet in force —
       nationals under Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                    either on 1 January or on 30 December 1 995 (the date on
       No 1408/71 ?
                                                                                which the Regulation was adopted by the
                                                                                Commission ).
III . Is Erziehungsgeld payable under the BErzGG a social
       advantage within the meaning of Article 7 ( 2 ) of
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ?                                          It cannot be said that the retroactive liberalization of the
                                                                                importation of Indian hand loom products in the area of
IV. Is it compatible with the law of the European Union for                     clothing was foreseeable by the economic operators in
       the BErzGG to require possession of a formal residence                   the industry. Such liberalization breached the legitimate
       authorization for the payment of Erziehungsgeld to                       expectations of the operators and the principle of legal
       nationals of a Member State, even though they are                        certainty and is therefore unlawful . Moreover, the
       permitted to reside in Germany ?                                         decision of the Council concerning the conclusion of the
                                                                                agreements does not provide for their retroactive
C ) OJ , English Special Edition J 968 ( II ), p . 475 .                        application, thus expressly depriving of any legal basis
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .                       the retroactivity and accelerated application of the
                                                                                arrangement with India under Article 2 of and Annex VI
                                                                                to Regulation ( EC ) No 3053/95 .
                                                                            — Infringement of Article 19 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 3030/93 : the power to amend the Annexes to
Action brought on 21 March 1996 by the Portuguese                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 is contingent upon
Republic against the Commission of the European                                 agreements with third countries having previously been
                              Communities                                       reached, which was not the case when the Regulation,
                             Case C-89/96
                                                                                which is partially contested in so far as concerns the
                                                                                Memorandum of Understanding with India , was
                             ( 96/C 145/08                                      adopted . The reference in the preamble to Regulation
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 3053/95 to an agreement which has not yet
An action against the Commission of the European                                been reached by the Community and the changes to the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                          rules for imports of textile products originating in India
the European Communities on 21 March 1996 by the                                constitute a serious infringement by the Commission
Portuguese Republic, represented by Luis Fernandes and                          which is particularly open to criticism inasmuch as there
Maria Luisa Duarte, acting as agents, with an address for                       is no Council proposal for a decision to apply on a
service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 , Allée                     provisional basis the EC-India Agreement.
Scheffer .
                                                                            (») OJ No L 323 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Annex V of Commission Regulation ( EC )
      No 3053/95 of 20 December 1995 amending Annexes I,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that court of 20 March 1996 in the criminal proceedings against Rosalinda Marchionne (Case C-189/96)

text:
No C 210/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 7 . 96
nevertheless they may not create obstacles to the exercise of               evidence, that he had had advance knowledge of the
the fundamental freedoms derived from the Treaty.                           model answers to the accounting and possibly the
                                                                            auditing questions, or of both the model answers and the
Lastly, in the Commission's view the present case does not                  questions themselves; the principles that no one may be
concern access to posts within the public administration but                obliged to incriminate himself cannot be relied on to
rather compliance with the principles of freedom of                         justify a total failure to cooperate in establishing the
movement and equal treatment in relation to conditions of                   truth,
employment and , consequently, it does not fall within the
exception of Article 48 ( 4 ).                                          — its assessment of the standard of proof required in order
                                                                            to establish a disciplinary offence : the contested
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 II, p . 475 .
                                                                            judgment in effect denies the disciplinary authorities the
                                                                            possibility of establishing a fact on the basis of a
                                                                            consistent body of relevant evidence obtained after a
                                                                            rigorously conducted disciplinary inquiry .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 22 .
Appeal brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
28 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-40/95
between Philippe Guebels and the Commission of the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                     European Communities                               Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
                        ( Case C-188/96 P                               court of 20 March 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Rosalinda Marchionne
                           ( 96/C 210/22 )
                                                                                ( Case C-189/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/23 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 199 6
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-40/95 between Philippe                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Guebels and the Commission of the European Communities                  European Communities by an order of the Pretura
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
Communities on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the                     Tivoli Division, of 20 March 1996 , which was received at
European Communities, represented by A. M. Alves Vieira                 the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling
and D. Waelbroeck , with an address for service in                      in the criminal proceedings against Rosalinda Marchionne
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its                 on questions which are the same as those in Joined Cases
Legal Service, Wagner Centre .                                          C-58/95 and others ( M.
                                                                        (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— set aside the judgment delivered on 28 March 1996 by
    the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
    T-40/95 ('), Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the
    European Communities, and
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
— make an appropriate ruling as to costs .                              court of 3 April 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Amerigo Alari
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  ( Case C-190/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/24 )
Breach of Community law in that the contested judgment
errs in :
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— its interpretation of the scope of the obligation to state            European Communities by an order of the Pretura
    reasons ,
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
                                                                        Tivoli Division, of 3 April 1996 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
— its legal assessment of the factors regarded by the
                                                                        the criminal proceedings against Amerigo Alari on questions
    appointing authority as aggravating by considering that
                                                                        which are the same as those in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
    they did not justify the adoption of a disciplinary                 others ( M.
    measure more severe than that recommended by the
    Disciplinary Board : the Court of First Instance was
    wrong in not considering the applicant's attitude to be             (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
    an aggravating factor when, instead of producing a
    plausible defence, he merely denied , against all the


title: Opinion 1/09: Request for an opinion submitted by the Council of the European Union pursuant to Article 300(6) EC

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/15

         Request for an opinion submitted by the Council of the European Union pursuant to Article 300(6) EC
   (Opinion 1/09)
   2009/C 220/24
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-C. Piris, F. Florindo Gijón and G. Kimberley, acting as Agents)

      Questions submitted to the Court

   Is the proposed agreement creating a unified patent litigation system (currently called the ‘European and Community Patents Court’) (1) compatible with the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

      (1)  Council Working Document on a revised Presidency text of the Draft Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court and Draft Statute (document 7928/09 of 23 March 2009).


title: Case T-107/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark NATURAVIVA — Earlier Community word mark VIVA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No similarity of the signs)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)
   (Case T-107/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark NATURAVIVA - Earlier Community word mark VIVA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No similarity of the signs)
   2011/C 331/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Natura Cosméticos, SA (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2009 (Case R 1558/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH and Natura Cosméticos, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA against the Council of the European Union (Case T-33/98)

text:
C 113/18              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with          Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid                 against the Council of the European Union
     was paid,                                                                             (Case T-33/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/45)
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                   represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
relied on Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia v.
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
Commission (1).
                                                                   4, boulevard Royal.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                       97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Netherlands              Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
Antilles against the Commission of the European                        97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
                          Communities
                        (Case T-32/98)                             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                         (98/C 113/44)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   Following a complaint lodged by the Defence Committee
                                                                   of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                   Union, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  investigation in respect of imports into the Community of
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
1998 by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F.          originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and
Bos and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an              the Slovak Republic. At the same time, the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               announced the initiation of an interim review of Council
Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe.                                    Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 in respect of imports of
                                                                   certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
                                                                   originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Croatia. The anti-dumping proceeding so initiated
                                                                   followed the normal course and on its conclusion the
                                                                   Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of
Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2532/97 of                   17 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping
     27 November 1997 introducing specific measures in             duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of
     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas        iron and non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland,
     countries and territories (1),                                Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak
                                                                   Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and
                                                                   terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.               originating in the Republic of Croatia (1).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant, a company incorporated under Romanian
                                                                   law, challenges the abovementioned Regulation, on the
                                                                   grounds that the Community institutions:
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
those in Case T-163/97 (2) and T-179/97 (3).
                                                                   Ð have acted in breach of Article 22 of the basic
                                                                       anti-dumping Regulation (hereinafter the Basic
(1) OJ L 326, 28.11.1997, p. 21.
(2) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997, p. 31.
                                                                       Regulation') and also Article 34 of the Association
(3) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, p. 25.                                        Agreement with Romania, by imposing anti-dumping
                                                                       duties without referring the matter to the Association
                                                                       Council, and the statement of the reasons for the
                                                                       contested Regulation is inadequate in this respect,
 ---pagebreak--- 11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 113/19
Ð have exceeded the limits of their discretion in the                Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Republica SA
    determination of the normal value by using, pursuant                      against the Council of the European Union
    to Article 3(4), third subparagraph, of the Basic                                        (Case T-34/98)
    Regulation, the 20 % rule to determine whether sales
    below costs are made in substantial quantities,                                           (98/C 113/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Ð have infringed Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation
    and committed a manifest error of appraisal with                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
    respect to the calculation of the dumping margin,                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    inasmuch as                                                      Communities on 23 February 1998 by Republica SA,
                                                                     represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
    Ð no explanation has been given as to why a                      4, boulevard Royal.
        comparison of the weighted average normal value
        with the prices of all individual export transactions
         reflects the full degree of dumping better than the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
         normal methods,
                                                                     Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                         97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
    Ð the dumping determination is based on factors
         falling outside the investigation period,
                                                                     Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                         97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
    Ð the existence of a pattern of export prices differing
         according to the various purchasers, regions or             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
         time-periods has not been demonstrated,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð have committed manifest errors of appraisal in the
    determination of injury and failed to demonstrate                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
    in accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the                   those relied on in Case T-33/98 Petrotub v. Council.
    Basic Regulation that material injury suffered by
    Community industry is caused by the imports from the
    countries subject to the investigation,
Ð have failed, in breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic               Action brought on 25 February 1998 by AndreÂ Hecq
    Regulation and the fundamental right to be heard, to               against the Commission of the European Communities
    give final disclosure on the considerations relating to                                  (Case T-35/98)
    the Community interest.
                                                                                (98/C 113/47)
The applicant finally submits that the conditions imposed                           (Language of the case: French)
by the Community institutions for imports to be exempted
from the anti-dumping duties in accordance with Article 2            An action against the Commission of the European
of the contested Regulation constitute an infringement of            Communities was brought before the Court of First
Articles 8(1) of the Basic Regulation and of the 1994                Instance of the European Communities on 25 February
GATT Anti-dumping Agreement, Article 34(2) and (3) of                1998 by AndreÂ Hecq, residing in Bonlez (Belgium), both
the Association Agreement with Romania, the conclusions              in his own name and that of the UIECS, represented by
of the Essen European Council laying down the                        Lucas Vogel of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
foundations for the pre-accession strategy for the                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and              Kremer, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. In relation to the last
point, it is contended that by requiring the applicant to set
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
its prices in line with the European producers, the
Community institutions have forced the applicant into a
parallel pricing behaviour in contravention of the                   Ð annul the decision of 17 November 1997, notified to
European competition rules.                                              the applicant on 24 November 1997, rejecting the
                                                                         applicant's complaint against the decision of 20 March
                                                                         1997, adopted in response to the applicant's request
(1) OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1.                                          pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         refusing to take the measures necessary to ensure
                                                                         collective and proportional representation in the
                                                                         membership of the Bureau of the local Staff


title: Case C-529/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/98/EC — Re-use of public sector information — Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/17

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-529/06) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/98/EC - Re-use of public sector information - Non-transposition within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 297/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. (represented by: C. Schiltz, agent)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not having adopted within the prescribed period the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42 of 24.2.2007.