title: Case T-442/03: Action brought on 31 December 2003 by SIC-Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.3.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 71/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                             and certain goods and services in
                                                                                Class 42 (hospitals, convalescent
                                                                                homes, sanatoriums; medical,
—     annul the contested decision (1) in so far as it refused                                          hygienic and beauty care; medical
      application No 1 358 480 for registration of a Com-                                               research, bacteriology and chemi-
      munity trade mark;                                                                                cal research; development of
                                                                                medicines, foodstuffs with phar-
—     grant application No 1 358 480 for registration of a                                              maceutical properties and other
      Community trade mark;                                                                             health care products, and con-
                                                                                ducting medical and clinical
                                                                                examinations, consultancy and
—     in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of                                           support for others for these activi-
      Appeal so that it may give a ruling on the matter;                                                ties; scientific and industrial
                                                                                research, in particular medical,
                                                                                bacteriological      or    chemical
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.                                                      research; opticians’ services; con-
                                                                                sultancy for health care pro-
                                                                                fessionals in the development,
                                                                                establishing and conducting of
                                                                                therapy programmes and the test-
                                                                                ing of the aforesaid therapy pro-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                         grammes by means of studies).
                                                                                Dismissal of the opponent’s
                                                                                appeal as to the remainder.
Applicant for Com-            The applicant
munity trade mark:                                                       Pleas in law:                  —     No likelihood of confusion
                                                                                within the meaning of
Community trade mark          The figurative mark ‘AMS                                                        Article 8(1) and (2) of Regu-
sought:                       Advanced Medical Services’ for                                                  lation (EC) No 40/94.
                              goods and services in Classes 5,
                              10 and 42 — Application No                                                —     No evidence of use of the
                              1 358 480.                                                                      opposed marks in the Euro-
                                                                                pean Community justifying
                                                                                refusal of the application.
Proprietor of mark or         American Medical Systems, Inc.
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                      (1) Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                             Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             in Case R 671/2002-4.
Mark or sign cited in         The UK word mark ‘AMS’
opposition:                   (No 2 061 585), the figurative
                              mark ‘American Medical System’
                              registered in several States of the
                              European Union and the regis-
                              tered     word      marks      ‘AMS
                              AMBICOR’, ‘AMS SECURO-T’ and
                              ‘AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS’
                              for goods in Class 10.
                                                                         Action brought on 31 December 2003 by SIC-Sociedade
                                                                         Independente de Comunicação, S.A. against the Com-
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the trade mark appli-                       mission of the European Communities
sition Division:              cation in respect of goods in
                              Class 10. Rejection of the oppo-
                              sition in so far as the application                                (Case T-442/03)
                              concerns goods and services in
                              Classes 5 and 42.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/59)
Decision of the Board of      Refusal of the trade mark appli-
Appeal:                       cation in respect of certain goods                          (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                              in Class 5 (Pharmaceutical, vet-
                              erinary and sanitary preparations;
                              dietetic substances adapted for
                              medical use; plasters, materials for
                              dressings; material for stopping           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                              teeth, dental wax; disinfectants)          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/32                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           20.3.2004
European Communities on 31 December 2003 by SIC-                           into account, as investment costs, sums relating to the
Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A, established in                 acquisition of assets when the auditors confirmed that there
Carnaxide (Portugal), represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz,                 was not even any evidence that the assets actually existed.
Eduardo Maia Cadete and Margarida Rosado da Fonseca,
lawyers, with an address for service at Rua Castilho, 75, 1o,
1250-068, Lisbon (Portugal).                                               The applicant argues that the fact that certain measures were
                                                                           found not to constitute State aid within the meaning of
                                                                           Article 87(1) EC amounted to an error of law. Those measures
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                included the exemption from paying fees and emoluments,
                                                                           postponement of the payment of fees for the use of the
annul the decision of the European Communities C(2003)                     television broadcasting network and a bond issue.
3526 (final) of 15 October 2003 on ad-hoc measures applied
to RTP by Portugal.
                                                                           The applicant also claims that the decision errs in law as
                                                                           regards the application of Article 86(2) EC, given that the
                                                                           Portuguese Government did not award public service television
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            broadcasting to RTP on the basis of a transparent and non-
                                                                           discriminatory procedure.
1.    Breach of the duty to act diligently and impartially;
                                                                           Furthermore, the Commission did not observe the criteria for
2.    Errors of fact;                                                      applying Article 86(2), which it laid down itself in the
                                                                           ‘Communication on the application of State aid rules to public
3.    No basis for the finding in the contested decision on                service broadcasting’. The applicant also maintains that, as
      ‘investment costs’;                                                  regards the supply by RTP of a public service, the Commission’s
                                                                           decision is not founded on any documentary evidence as to
4.    Error of law concerning the failure to classify certain              whether RTP actually fulfilled the public-service obligations
      measures as State aid;                                               laid upon it by the State, since, in practice, the facts of the case
                                                                           suggest that, as regards the relevant period, the service which
5.    Error of law as to the conditions for the application of             RTP was contractually bound to provide was not properly
      Article 86(2) EC.                                                    supplied.
As regards the breach of the duty of diligence, the applicant
maintains that the contested decision represented the final
stage in the Commission’s failure to act transparently, impar-
tially and diligently in the way it conducted the procedure
culminating in the adoption of the decision, which was
conducted throughout with a view to justifying the unjustifia-
ble and omitting facts essential for the purpose of an accurate            Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Cemender Kork-
analysis of the way in which RTP ‘fulfilled’ its public service            maz, The Corner House and the Kurdish Human Rights
obligations. It submits that the Commission did not act                    Project against the Commission of the European Com-
neutrally and failed to maintain an equal distance between the                                          munities
interests in play, since it did not thoroughly weigh up the
legally protected interests prior to taking action.
                                                                                (Case T-2/04)
In relation to the errors of fact, the applicant maintains, in
particular, that no regard was had to the additional assistance                                    (2004/C 71/60)
granted by the State to the public operator in 1998, whilst
sums which had not been verified by independent auditors
were taken into account as ‘investment costs’. In the applicant’s                            (Language of the case: English)
submission, the Commission also failed to check that RTP had
actually fulfilled its public service obligations.
The applicant claims that there is no basis for taking the                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
‘investment costs’ into account in the contested decision, since           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission fails to state the reasons why it took the                  European Communities on 2 January 2004 by Cemender
relevant sums into account in its final decision and why it,               Korkmaz, Flers, (France), The Corner House, Newton, (United
inconsistently, did not take into account the sums in RTP’s                Kingdom), and the Kurdish Human Rights Project, London,
‘Reports on the Public Service’ but those in RTP’s financial               (United Kingdom), represented by P. Moser, Barrister, and
accounts. It also fails to explain why it was possible to take             A. Stock, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-442/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Finanzamt Oschatz v Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 4(5) and 12(3)(a) — Annexes D and H — Concept of supply of water or water supplies — Reduced rate of VAT)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Finanzamt Oschatz v Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien
   (Case C-442/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 4(5) and 12(3)(a) - Annexes D and H - Concept of ‘supply of water’ or ‘water supplies’ - Reduced rate of VAT)
   (2008/C 128/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Oschatz

      Defendant: Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien

      Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of point 2 of Annex D and Category 2 of Annex H to Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Reduced rate for the supply of water — Payment for the installation of mains connections to end users
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and point 2 of Annex D thereto must be interpreted as meaning that the laying of a mains connection which consists, as in the main proceedings, in the installation of piping permitting the connection of a building's water system to the fixed water supply network forms part of the supply of water, listed in that annex, so that a body governed by public law acting as a public authority is a taxable person in respect of that transaction.

               2.

               Article 12(3)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 and Category 2 of Annex H thereto must be interpreted as meaning that the laying of a mains connection which consists, as in the main proceedings, in the installation of piping permitting the connection of a building's water system to the fixed water supply network forms part of water supplies. Furthermore, Member States may apply a reduced rate of value added tax to concrete and specific aspects of water supplies, such as the laying of mains connections at issue in the main proceedings, provided that they comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T-676/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/29

         Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)
   (Case T-676/16)
   (2016/C 410/40)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘mycard2go’ — Application No 14 303 457

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 280/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the defendant for continuation of the registration procedure concerning EU trade mark No 014303457;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-297/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by ACEA S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 30 September 2002 by ACEA S.p.A.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     declare void and annul the decision adopted on 17 July
      2002 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market, concerning appeal                                     (Case T-297/02)
      No R 0036/2002-3 relating to registration of the Com-
      munity trade mark ‘Lindenhof’ (application No 629741);
                                                                                (2002/C 289/67)
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-         REWE-Zentral AG                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
munity trade mark:                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 30 September 2002 by ACEA
The Community trade            the word mark ‘Lindenhof’, inter           S.p.A., represented by Andrea Giardina, Luca G. Radicati di
mark applied for:              alia for goods in Class 32 (mineral        Brozolo and Vincenzo Puca, avvocati.
                               waters and aerated waters and
                               other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit
                               drinks and fruit juices) — appli-
                               cation No 629741                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant in these proceedings
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2002 (State
mark right opposed in
                                                                                Aid No C.27/99) in so far as it declares unlawful and
the opposition proceed-
                                                                                incompatible with the common market the three-year
ings:
                                                                                exemption from tax on profits granted by Italy to local
                                                                                public service undertakings the majority of the shares
Trade-mark            right    the German pictorial mark ‘LIND-                 in which are publicly owned within the meaning of
opposed:                       ERHOF’ for goods in Class 33                     Article 3(70) of Law No 549/1995, and loans granted on
                               (champagne-like wines)                           preferential terms pursuant to Article 9a of Decree-Law
                                                                                No 488/1986, and in so far as it requires Italy to recover
Decision of the Oppo-          partial rejection of the opposition              the aid in question from the recipients thereof, including
sition Division:                                                                the applicant (Articles 2 and 3 of the decision);
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              —     likelihood of confusion
                                     within the meaning of
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1);                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                               —     the competing marks are
                                     extremely similar;
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                               —     the goods of the trade-mark          advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei
                                     applicant are not sufficiently       Servizi v Commission.
                                     dissimilar to those of the
                                     applicant in these proceed-
                                     ings.
                                                                          In particular, the applicant pleads that the measures at issue
                                                                          cannot constitute State aid, inasmuch as the companies
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the          benefitting from the system in question do not operate within
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                           a framework of competition. Furthermore, even if the measures
                                                                          at issue were to be regarded as State aid and were not classified
                                                                          as existing aid, they should be regarded as compatible aid
                                                                          within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) EC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/38               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.11.2002
In addition, the contested act infringes the principles of the            —     infringement of the principle of non-discrimination,
protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality,                   inasmuch as the case involves a difference in treatment
in so far as the Italian State has been ordered by the defendant                between personal situations which are substantially the
to recover the alleged aid.                                                     same, since no account has been taken, for the purposes
                                                                                of calculating the reference period, of the periods of work
                                                                                completed, prior to their engagement, by certain officials
                                                                                employed in Brussels in offices of German Länder or of
                                                                                United Kingdom federations.
Action brought on 1 October 2002 by Anna Romero                           The applicant also pleads failure to comply with the obligation
Romeu against the Commission of the European Com-                         to provide a statement of reasons.
                             munities
                         (Case T-298/02)
                         (2002/C 289/68)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                        Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Carles Dedeu i
                                                                          Fontcuberta against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                         (Case T-299/02)
European Communities on 1 October 2002 by Anna Romero
Romeu, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-
Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem-Carrau, lawyers.                                          (2002/C 289/69)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 June
      2002 in so far as it does not recognise the applicant’s
      entitlement to the expatriate allowance and, consequently,          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      her entitlement to the other associated allowances in               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      accordance with the decision in Lozano;                             European Communities on 30 September 2002 by Carles
                                                                          Dedeu i Fontcuberta, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           ed by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and J. Guillem-Carrau,
                                                                          lawyers.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
By the present action, the applicant, an official of the defendant        —     annul the decision of 23 September 2002, implicit in the
institution, is contesting the appointing authority’s decision                  Commission’s silence, rejecting complaint 275/02, and
refusing to recognise her entitlement to the expatriation                       refusing to acknowledge his right to the expatriation
allowance (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations); in                 allowance and, therefore, other associated benefits, in
the applicant’s view, that allowance is due to her inasmuch as                  accordance with the judgment in Lozano;
her habitual residence and centre of interests during the
relevant period under the Staff Regulations was Barcelona and             —     order the Commission to pay the full costs.
not Brussels.
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     commission of a manifest error of assessment of the facts,
      inasmuch as, first, the contested decision did not treat the
      work done for the representative office of a Spanish                The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put
      Autonomous Community in Brussels as ‘work done for                  forward in Case T-298/02 Ana Herrero Romeu v Commission.
      another State’ and, second, it failed to take account of the
      applicant’s personal situation as regards lasting links with
      the country of employment;


title: Case T-112/99: Action brought on 10 May 1999 by Métropole Télévision - M6, Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux, France Télécom and Télévision Française 1 - TF1 against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 226/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
had he not been appointed to that post on the conclusion of              The applicants consider that both the exclusive rights clause
an irregular procedure for which he is in no way responsible,            concerning the general channels and the clause granting
he would by now, in the course of a normal career, have                  preference to TPS by its associates for the special interest
reached the grade of A 4 and could apply for the post.                   channels and the television services which constitute incidental
                                                                         restrictions on the TPS joint venture, should be afforded the
The applicant considers that, by acting in that way, the                 same treatment as the joint venture. B refusing to acknowledge
Parliament has infringed Article 233 EC (ex Article 176),                the incidental nature of the restrictions deriving from those
Articles 4, 7(1), 29(1), 45 and 46 of the Staff Regulations of           clauses, the Commission is forcing the applicants to request
Officials and the internal rules and provisions adopted by the           on a regular basis the renewal of the exemptions granted,
Parliament with regard to promotion and career development,              which runs counter to Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) and the
and that it has violated the principle of equal treatment, the           principle of legal certainty. In the alternative, the applicants
duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials,          claim that the Commission misapplied the exemption criteria
and the principles of proportionality and of the protection              provided for in the third paragraph of the aforementioned
of legitimate expectations. He furthe1 maintains that the                Article 81, and misassessed the minimal duration of the
contravention’s of the above-mentioned rules and principles              exemption.
form part of a process of misuse of powers designed to secure
the appointment to the post in issue of a candidate chosen in            So far as concerns the clause referred to in Article 2 of
advance.                                                                 the contested decision, the applicants emphasise that the
                                                                         Commission, while considering their undertaking not to
                                                                         compete to be a restriction incidental to the setting up of the
                                                                         TPS, has nevertheless decided to restrict to three years the
                                                                         incidental status of that restriction. In their view, by adopting
                                                                         that approach, the Commission has not complied with the
                                                                         rules which it had itself laid clown in the 24th Report on
Action brought on 10 May 1999 by Métropole Télévision                    Competition Policy (1994), thus infringing Article 81 EC (ex
— M6, Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux, France Télécom and                        Article 85) and the principle of legal certainty.
Télévision Française 1 — TF1 against Commission of the
                    European Communities
                        (Case T-112/99)
                        (1999/C 226/60)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Action brought on 7 May 1999 by The Galileo Company
                                                                         and Galileo International L.L.C against the Council of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                        European Union
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 May 1999 by Métropole
Télévision - M6, Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), Suez-Lyonnaise des                                  (Case T-113/99)
Eaux, Nanterre (France), France Télécom Paris, and Télévision
Française 1 - TF1, Paris, represented by Didier Théophile,
Patrick Dunaud and Patricia Elsen, of the Paris Bar, with an                                     (1999/C 226/61)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse
May. 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in part the Commission Decision of 3 March 1999                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
    relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    (Case IV/36.237 - TPS) (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 6) to the extent            Communities on 7 May 1999 by The Galileo Company and
    of annulling Articles 2 and 3 thereof;                               Galileo International L.L.C., represented by Richard Plender,
                                                                         Sara Masters, Katherine Holmes and Daniel Austin, with an
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,
                                                                         Hoss and Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants criticise the Commission for having granted
only a temporary negative clearance of three years in respect            — annul Article 1(7)(b), second indent, of Council Regulation
of certain clauses in the agreements setting up the Télévision               (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 to the extent to
par Satellite (TPS) company, namely, on the one hand, the                    which that measure applies to operators of Computer
clause on the exclusive transmission of the four channels on                 Reservation Systems in being on the date when the
TPS and the clause on the special-interest channels and                      measure was made; and
television services provided by TPS (Article 3 of the contested
decision) and, on the other, the non-competition clause (Article         — order the Council to pay the costs of the action including
2 of the contested decision).                                                those of the applicants.


title: Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Société Auxiliaire d'Entreprises (SAE) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-127/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 208 /35
       Communities, such aid being, moreover, a prerequisite           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
       for their performance .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
As regards the substance, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas in law :                                               The pleas in law and arguments are identical to those in Case
                                                                       T-126/95 .
( a ) Failure to state reasons : the contested decision does not
       state the reasons on which it is based, as required by
       Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
( b) Infringement of Article 155 of the EC Treaty: by failing
       to act in the present case , the Commission did not             Action brought on 3 June 1995 by Aeroports de Paris (ADP)
       discharge its duty under Article 155 of the Treaty to             against the Commission of the European Communities
       ensure that Greece applied Community law.
                                                                                ( Case T-l 28/95 )
(c ) Error in law or manifest error of assessment: the                                          ( 95/C 208/73 )
       Commission has committed either an error in law, if it
       considered that there was no reason to take further                            (Language of the case: French)
       steps against Greece on the ground that Community
       law had not been infringed, or a manifest error of
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
       assessment, if it considered that the infringements in          Communities was brought before the Court of First
       question were not sufficient to justify the initiation of       Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 1995 by
       the infringement procedure against the Hellenic                 Aeroports de Paris (ADP ), whose registered office is in Paris,
       Republic . It can scarcely be disputed , in the applicant's
                                                                       represented by Hugues Calvet of the Paris Bar, with an
       view, that the principle of equal treatment of tenderers        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
       has been infringed in several respects and that the Greek       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
       authorities have manifestly disregarded Articles 30 and
       59 of the EC Treaty and the Council directives on the
       award of public contracts.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the Commission 's decision of 29 March 1995
                                                                           refusing to take further steps against the Hellenic
                                                                           Republic for failure to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           Community law with respect to the award of the public
                                                                           contract for Athens airport,
Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Societe Auxiliaire
                                                                       — in the alternative, declare that the Commission failed to
d'Entreprises ( SAE ) against the Commission of the
                                                                           act,
                       European Communities
                          ( Case T-127/95 )                            — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs
                            ( 95/C 208/72 )                                incurred by ADP in connection with the present
                                                                           application for annulment.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European                       The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those in Case
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                     T-126/95 .
 Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1995 by
 Societe Auxiliaire d'Entreprises ( SAE ), whose registered
 office is at Issy-les-Moulineaux ( France ), represented by
 Alexandre Carnelutti, of the Paris Bar .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Action brought on 9 June 1995 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1995 ,                                          ( Case T-130/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/74 )
 — in the alternative, declare that the Commission
      unlawfully omitted to initiate the procedure for failure
      to fulfil its obligations against the Hellenic Republic, on                     (Language of the case: French)
      account of the serious and repeated infringements of
      Community law committed by the Greek Government in               An action against the Commission of the European
      connection with the procedure for awarding the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
      contract for the new Athens airport,                             Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 1995 by


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


30.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 166/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-352/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/28)                                                     (98/C 166/32)
By order of 6 March 1998 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                   By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Case C-56/97: Commission of the European Communities              removal from the register of Case C-352/97: Commission
v French Republic.                                                of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/29)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-353/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/33)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (reference for         By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Queen's Bench Divison, Commercial Court): Compagnia               removal from the register of Case C-353/97: Commission
di Navigazione Marittima and Others v Compagnie                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
Maritime Belge and Others.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-310/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-101/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/30)
                                                                                (98/C 166/34)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-310/96: Commission            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of the European Communities v Kingdom of the                      removal from the register of Case C-101/97: Commission
Netherlands.                                                      of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/31)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-286/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/35)
By order of 20 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (reference for         By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fifth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
per la Sardegna): SocietaÁ Appia Srl v Comune di Cagliari         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
and SocietaÁ Cagliari Calcio SpA.                                 Case     C-286/96:     Commission     of the    European
                                                                  Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.


title: Removal from the register of C-278/96

text:
C 7/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
          Removal from the register of C-88/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-183/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/32)                                                        (98/C 7/36)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court            By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/96 (reference for a         removal from the register of Case C-183/96 (Reference for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione           a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
Prima Civile): Igino Mazzola Srl v. Amministrazione delle          Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
Finanze dello Stato.                                               Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-121/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/33)                                       Removal from the register of C-204/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/37)
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-121/96 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht                 removal from the register of Case C-204/96 (reference for
Hamburg): Sultan Bulut v. Deutsche Bundespost.                     a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): E. F.
                                                                   Liebelt GmbH & Co. KG v. Marianne Seidel.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 247, 24. 8. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-128/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/34)                                       Removal from the register of C-278/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/38)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-128/96 (Reference for          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           removal from the register of Case C-278/96 (Reference for
Section)): Trinity Alimentari Italia SpA v. Amministrazione        a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
delle Finanze dello Stato.                                         Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
                                                                   Section)): Vezza SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318, 26. 10. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-155/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/35)
                                                                            Removal from the register of C-354/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/39)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/96 (Reference for          By order of 23 October 1997, the President of the Sixth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze          of Case C-354/96: Commission of the European
dello Stato.                                                       Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 180, 22. 6. 1996.                                         (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.


4.5.2002              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 109/39
      Removal from the register of Case C-105/98 P (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-295/99 (1)
                       (2002/C 109/66)                                                   (2002/C 109/69)
By order of 27 November 2001 the President of the Court of        By order of 12 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-105/98 P: Günther Bühring v           from the register of Case C-295/99: Kingdom of Belgium v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the               Commission of the European Communities.
European Communities
                                                                  (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-461/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-24/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/70)
                       (2002/C 109/67)
                                                                  By order of 1 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 18 February 2002 the President of the Court of        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-461/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-24/99: Commission of the              European Communities v Ireland.
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-77/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-140/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/71)
                       (2002/C 109/68)
                                                                  By order of 6 December 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 6 December 2001 the President of the Court of         from the register of Case C-77/00 (Referral for a preliminary
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany)): Urlaubs
from the register of Case C-140/99: Commission of the             — und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft v Viscondense
European Communities v French Republic.                           Construçoes, Lda.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case T-446/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WM 2006)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/50

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WM 2006)
   (Case T-446/08)
   (2008/C 313/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Alexander QC, A. Barav, Barrister, R. Buchel and C. Rassmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero OHG mbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 in case R 1468/2005-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘WM 2006’ for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 2 155 521

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law: (i) Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in so far as the Board of Appeal has based, largely, its decision on Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, a provision which was neither invoked by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, nor relied upon by the Cancellation Division; (ii) Alternatively, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity as a whole, through the eyes of the average consumer and to apply the relevant law relating to the assessment of descriptiveness of the goods and/or services applied for; and (iii) Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of the necessary distinctive character; and (iv) Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity had not acquired a distinctive character for services in class 41.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2002 in Case T-193/00: Bernard Felix v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Oral test — Non-inclusion in the reserve list — Consistency of the composition of the selection board — Knowledge of languages)

text:
C 118/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         18.5.2002
Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the                 1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board in competition COM/
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by                     A/12/98 in so far as it concerns the mark awarded to the
the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from                    applicant for the oral test;
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation          2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, (OJ
1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules
for the application of the additional levy referred to in                (1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.
Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132,
p. 11), Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tilli and R. M. Moura Ramos,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
(1) OJ C 304 of 29.10.1994.                                                                           INSTANCE
                                                                                19 December 2001
                                                                         in Joined Cases T-195/01 R and T-207/01 R, Government
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of Gibraltar v Commission of the European Communities
                       of 7 February 2002
                                                                         (Proceedings for interim relief — State aid — Decision to
                                                                         initiate a formal investigation procedure — Admissibility —
in Case T-193/00: Bernard Felix v Commission of the                      Prima facie case — Urgency — None — Balancing of
                   European Communities (1)                                                             interests)
(Officials — Open competition — Oral test — Non-
inclusion in the reserve list — Consistency of the composition                                     (2002/C 118/39)
      of the selection board — Knowledge of languages)
                         (2002/C 118/38)                                                    (Language of the Case: English)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Joined Cases T-195/01 R and T-207/01 R, Government of
In Case T-193/00: Bernard Felix, an official of the Commission           Gibraltar, represented by A. Sutton, M. Llamas, Barristers, and
of the European Communities, residing at Arlon (Belgium),                W. Schuster, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an                bourg, against Commission of the European Communities,
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                   (Agents: V. Di Bucci and R. Lyal): Application for interim
European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for               measures in respect of the decisions of the Commission of
annulment of the decision of the selection board in compe-               11 July 2001, notified to the Government of the United
tition COM/A/12/98 awarding the applicant a lower mark                   Kingdom by letters SG(2001) D/289755 and SG(2001) D/
than the minimum required for the oral test and excluding                289757, to initiate the procedure provided for by
him from the reserve list — the Court of First Instance (Fifth           Article 88(2) EC in respect of alleged State aid granted under
Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Gracı́a-            Gibraltarian legislation to exempt and qualifying companies
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for         respectively, the President of the Court of First Instance made
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in               the following order on 19 December 2001, the operative part
which it:                                                                of which is as follows:


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2001 in Case T-191/00: Werner F. Edlinger v Commission of the European Communities (Action for failure to act — Actionable omissions — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 3/32                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          5.1.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Ferroatlántica, established in Madrid, represented by D. Voille-
                                                                           mot and O. Prost, avocats, against Commission of the Euro-
                         of 10 July 2001                                   pean Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and
                                                                           A.P. Bentley) — application for the amendment of the
                                                                           operative part of the order of the President of the Court of
in Case T-191/00: Werner F. Edlinger v Commission of                       First Instance of 1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliag-
                the European Communities (1)                               es and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR —
                                                                           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
(Action for failure to act — Actionable omissions —                        12 September 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                         Inadmissibility)
                          (2002/C 3/55)                                    1.    The application is dismissed.
                  (Language of the case: German)                           2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-191/00, Werner F. Edlinger, resident in Vienna,
represented by F. Frisch, lawyer, against the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and C. Laden-
burger) — application for a declaration that the Commission
unlawfully failed to act in relation to measures taken on
31 January 2000 against the Republic of Austria by the Heads
of State or Government of the fourteen other Member States
of the European Union — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                Action brought on 20 September 2001 by Japan Tobacco
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President and V. Tiili                  Inc. and JT International S.A. against the Council of the
and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; Registrar H. Jung, made an                         European Union and the European Parliament
order on 10 July 2001, the operative part of which is the
following:
                                                                                (Case T-223/01)
1)   The case is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (2002/C 3/57)
2)   The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                           European Parliament was brought before the Court of First
                                                                           Instance of the European Communities on 20 September 2001
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International S.A., represented
                           INSTANCE                                        by Mr Onno Brouwer and Mr Paul Lomas of Freshfields
                                                                           Bruckhaus Deringer, London (United Kingdom)
                     of 12 September 2001
in Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages and Others v Com-                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
           mission of the European Communities
(Application for interim measures — Article 108 of the                     —     annul Article 7 of the Directive in its entirety; alternatively
                       Rules of Procedure)
                                                                           —     annul Article 7 of the Directive to the extent that it
                          (2002/C 3/56)                                          precludes the applicants from using their trade mark
                                                                                MILD SEVEN within the European Union; and
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     order that, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of
                                                                                Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the European
In Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages, established in Brussels,                       Parliament and/or the Council of the European Union
Péchiney électrométallurgie, established in Courbevoie                           pay the costs of these proceedings, including those of the
(France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön (Sweden),                      applicants and any third parties.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Charleroi by judgment of that court of 2 July 1998 in the case of Tibor Balog v. ASBL Royal Charleroi Sporting Club (RCSC) (Case C-264/98)

text:
C 278/28                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.9.98
     order to comply with Council Directive 93/65/EEC of                   financing for the sum of BEF 382 208 436 by way of
     19 July 1993 on the definition and use of compatible                  expenditure incurred for the advance payment of
     technical specifications for the procurement of                       export refunds;
     air-traffic management equipment and systems (1),
     alternatively by failing to take the measures necessary          2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     to comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has                       proceedings.
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                      those in Case C-242/97 (2).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      (1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
                                                                      (2) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 6.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit laid down by
Article 9 of the Directive expired on 20 July 1994.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
The Commission asserts, in the alternative, that the                  PremieÁre Instance de Charleroi by judgment of that court
Directive confers on nationals of the Member States the               of 2 July 1998 in the case of Tibor Balog v. ASBL Royal
right to respond to invitations to tender prepared in                                Charleroi Sporting Club (RCSC)
accordance with the standards laid down pursuant to
and in accordance with the Directive. For that reason,                                       (Case C-264/98)
internal memoranda circulated by State ministries or                                           (98/C 278/51)
administrative authorities do not constitute an adequate
transposition measure.
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
(1) OJ L 187, 27.7.1993, p. 52.                                       PremieÁre Instance (Court of First Instance), Charleroi, of
(2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.                             2 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      20 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tibor
                                                                      Balog v. ASBL Royal Charleroi Sporting Club on the
                                                                      following question:
                                                                      Is it compatible with Article 85 of the EC Treaty and/or
                                                                      with Article 53 of the Agreement on the European
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Kingdom                         Economic Area for a football club established in the
of Belgium against the Commission of the European                     territory of a Member State of the European Union to
                            Communities                               claim, on the basis of the rules and circulars of the
                          (Case C-263/98)                             national and international federations (URBSFA, UEFA,
                                                                      FIFA), payment of a transfer sum' on the occasion of the
                           (98/C 278/50)                              engagement of one of its former players, a professional
                                                                      footballer of non-Community nationality who has reached
                                                                      the end of his contract, by a new employer established in
An action against the Commission of the European                      the same Member State, in another Member State of the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                European Union or the European Economic Area, or in a
the European Communities on 17 July 1998 by the                       non-member country?
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, General
Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade
and Development Cooperation, and H. Gilliams, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des Girondins.
                                                                      References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera
                                                                      Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           31 March 1998 in the cases of Salvat Editores SA and
                                                                               Others and J. CompanÄ Calbuig and Others
                                                                                (Cases C-265/98 to C-272/98)
1. annul Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
                                                                                (98/C 278/52)
     1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
     Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994
     on the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far                European Communities by orders of Juzgado de Primera
     as it disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community          Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 35, Barcelona, of


title: Judgment of the Court of 29 June 1999 in Case C-158/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Coffeeshop 'Siberië' vof (Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Sixth Directive - Scope - Supply of a table for the sale of narcotic drugs)

text:
C 246/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 29 June 1999
                                                                                of 29 June 1999
in Case C-158/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van
            Financiën v Coffeeshop ‘Siberië’ vof (1)                        in Case C-172/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —                      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article
   Scope — Supply of a table for the sale of narcotic drugs)                6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC)
                                                                            — Freedom of establishment — Requirement for there to be
                                                                            Belgian members in order for an association to be granted
                                                                                legal personality)
                           (1999/C 246/10)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/11)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-158/98: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  In Case C-172/98: Commission of the European Communities
EC (ex Article 177) by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden,                       (Agent: M. Patakia) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder)
Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    — application for a declaration that by requiring the presence
pending before that court between Staatssecretaris van Finan-               of a Belgian member in the administration of an association or
ciën and Coffeeshop ‘Siberië’ vof on the interpretation of                  a minimum, and majority, presence of members of Belgian
Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of               nationality in order for the legal personality of an association
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  to be recognised, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                  its obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)                amendment, Article 12 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
— the Court composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,               composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rappor-            J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cos-
teur) (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,                   mas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges;                       ment on 29 June 1999, in which it:
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1. Declares that, by requiring the presence of a Belgian member in
                                                                                the administration of an association or a minimum, and
                                                                                majority, presence of members of Belgian nationality in order for
Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17                 the legal personality of an association to be recognised, the
May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                   Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                   Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12
uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that in              EC);
the circumstances of the main action renting out a space for the sale
of narcotic drugs falls within the scope of that directive.
                                                                            2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 1999 in Case C-59/98: Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 94/46/EC)

text:
C 121/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             1.5.1999
2. declares that the annulled Regulations are to remain in force            2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
     until the Council adopts, within a reasonable period, new
     regulations having the same subject matter;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 151, 16.5.1998.
3. orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
4. orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its
     own costs.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 February 1999
                                                                            in Case C-319/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       ties v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 94/47/EC — Non-transposition)
                         of 25 February 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 121/11)
 in Case C-59/98: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                 to transpose Directive 94/46/EC)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (1999/C 121/10)
                                                                            In Case C-319/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: Pieter van Nuffel) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Anni
                      (Language of the case: French)                        Snoecx) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                            adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Concil of 26
                     in the European Court Reports)                         October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of
                                                                            certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the
                                                                            right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (OJ L
In Case C-59/98: Commission of the European Communities                     280, 29.10.1994, p. 83), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
(Agents: Giuliano Marenco and José F. Crespo Carrillo) v. Grand             to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the Court (Third
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) — application                   Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,                   Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges;
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
with Commission Directive 94/46/EC of 13 October 1994                       has given a judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it:
amending Directive 88/301/EEC and Directive 90/388/EEC in
particular with regard to satellite communications (OJ L 268,
19.10.1994, p. 15), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court           1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann                         comply with Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament
(Rapporteur) and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; Advocate-General:                     and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
S. Alber, Registrat: R. Grass, has given a judgment on                          purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
25 February 1999, in wihich it:                                                 purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare
                                                                                basis, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that Directive;
1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,        2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     to comply with Commission Directive 94/46/EC of 13 October
     1994 amending Directive 88/301/EEC and Directive                       (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
     90/388/EEC in particular with regard to satellite communi-
     cations, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that Directive;