title: Case C-182/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wels by order of that court of 9 May 2000 in the company register proceedings brought by Lutz Gesellschaft mbH, Dr Richard Seifert, Dr Andreas Seifert, Dr Johann Georg Schelling, Walter Kaltenecker, Werner Kneidinger and Günther Gruber

text:
C 233/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12.8.2000
—     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.             Handelsgericht (Regional Court, sitting as Commercial Court),
                                                                         Wels, Austria, of 9 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 15 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          company register proceedings brought by Lutz Gesellschaft
                                                                         mbH, Dr Richard Seifert, Dr Andreas Seifert, Dr Johann Georg
On the basis of Articles 10 and 249 EC and of Article 2 of               Schelling, Walter Kaltenecker, Werner Kneidinger and Günther
Directive 97/36/EC, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                   Gruber on the following questions:
required by no later than 30 December 1998 to bring into
force the laws, regulations and administrative measures neces-
sary in order to comply with the directive.                              1.   Do the measures provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of First
                                                                              Directive 68/151/EEC (1) and Article 47 of Fourth Directi-
                                                                              ve 78/660/EEC (2) regarding the disclosure obligation on
(1) OJ 1998 L 6, p. 43.                                                       capital companies infringe Article 44(2)(g) EC, which
(2) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.                                                     confers power to coordinate the safeguards which, for
                                                                              the protection of the interests of members and creditors,
                                                                              are required by Member States of companies?
                                                                         2.   Do the measures provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of First
                                                                              Directive 68/151/EEC and Article 47 of Fourth Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te                       78/660/EEC regarding the disclosure obligation on capital
Antwerpen, Hasselt Division, by order of that court of                        companies infringe Article 44(2)(g) EC, in that they are
4 May 2000 in the case of M.-J. Verwayen-Boelen against                       not necessary to eliminate restrictions on establishment
            Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening                               or to attain other objectives of the EEC Treaty (in
                                                                              particular the establishment of uniform general legal
                          (Case C-175/00)                                     requirements)?
                         (2000/C 233/25)                                 3.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
                                                                              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
European Communities by order of the Arbeidshof te Antwer-                    secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
pen (Labour Court Antwerp), Hasselt Division, of 4 May 2000,                  sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for a                          year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
preliminary ruling in the case of M.-J. Verwayen-Boelen                       provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
against Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening on the following                  intrusive — measures, compatible with the general legal
question:                                                                     principle of proportionality?
Must Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, according              4.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
to which that regulation applies to branches of social security,              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
be interpreted as meaning that a scheme such as the RWW                       78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
scheme, which has characteristics both of social security and                 secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
of social assistance, falls within the scope of that regulation, so           sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
that the period during which an employed person receives                      year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
benefits under this scheme can qualify as an insurance period                 provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
which is to be taken into account when assessing whether that                 intrusive — measures, compatible with the fundamental
person can have entitlement to unemployment benefits in                       right to property in Community law?
Belgium?
                                                                         5.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
                                                                              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
                                                                              78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
                                                                              secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
                                                                              sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht                     year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
Wels by order of that court of 9 May 2000 in the company                      provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
register proceedings brought by Lutz Gesellschaft mbH,                        intrusive — measures, compatible with the fundamental
Dr Richard Seifert, Dr Andreas Seifert, Dr Johann Georg                       right of freedom to pursue an economic activity in
Schelling, Walter Kaltenecker, Werner Kneidinger and                          Community law?
                         Günther Gruber
                          (Case C-182/00)
                                                                         (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                         (2000/C 233/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landes- als


title: Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 February 2006  — TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission (Public contracts — Community procedure for call for tenders — Recruitment of short-term experts responsible for providing technical assistance for the benefit of third countries benefiting from external aid — Rejection of tenders)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2006 — TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05) (1)

   (Public contracts - Community procedure for call for tenders - Recruitment of short-term experts responsible for providing technical assistance for the benefit of third countries benefiting from external aid - Rejection of tenders)
   (2006/C 86/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: TEA-CEGOS, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA (Brussels, Belgium), in Case T-376/05 (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers), and GHK Consulting Ltd (London, United Kingdom), in Case T-383/05 (represented by: M. Dittmer and J.-E. Svensson, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment, first, of the Commission's decisions of 12 October 2005 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicants in the context of the procedure for the call for tenders bearing the reference ‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/multi-Lot 7’ and, second, of any other decision taken by the Commission in the context of the same call for tenders following the decisions of 12 October 2005
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions.

               2.

               Orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory procedures.

      (1)  OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005


title: Case C-404/05: Action brought on  17 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/15

         Action brought on 17 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-404/05)
   (2006/C 10/30)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Gerald Braun, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil it obligations under Article 49 EC in requiring that private inspection bodies in the field of organic production of agricultural products, which have a registered office in and are approved in another Member State, must maintain a place of business or other permanent infrastructure in Germany in order to be able to carry out their activities there;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The German authorities require of every inspection body in the field of organic production of agricultural products having a registered office in and approved in another Member State that it must also maintain a registered office or place of business in Germany in order to be allowed to carry out business activities in Germany. This requirement is contrary to the principle of freedom to provide services as it renders impossible the supply of services in Germany by companies with an establishment in other Member States.
   Under Article 49 freedom to provide services is to be understood as the right, without hindrance, from a base in one Member State, to provide individual services in another Member State without maintaining a permanent establishment there. According to the settled case-law of the Court, the guarantee of freedom to provide services requires not only the removal of all discrimination on the basis of nationality but also the abolition of all restrictions which lend themselves to prohibiting, hindering or rendering less attractive the activities of a services provider who has an establishment in another Member State and regularly renders similar services there. Article 49 therefore precludes the application of a national regulation or administrative practice which, without objective justification, restricts the opportunity for a services provider to actually make use of the freedom to provide services.
   The reasons given by the Federal Government — the alleged exercise of official authority by the inspection bodies and the public interest — are not such as to justify that restriction on the freedom to provide services. Reference to the exercise of official authority as a justification for the present restriction on the freedom to provide services would only be lawful and acceptable if the activity in question were one which constitutes direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority. It is true that the inspection bodies of the Länder are also entrusted with official tasks and would furthermore have the opportunity to compulsorily enforce the sanctions provided for in the Regulation, but that is irrelevant as regards Community law and does not alter the fact that the activities of an inspection body governed by Community law can also be carried out in Germany, in the context of freedom to provide services, by any inspection body approved in another Member State on that legal basis.
   The fact that an inspection body has no place of business in Germany does not jeopardise the public interest as the real control according to Community law criteria takes place when the inspection body in question is approved and examined by the public authorities of the approving Member State. In the present case Community coordination measures and harmonisation provisions also exist, which ensure that the interest which the Federal Government is putting forward is also pursued according to the same standards in other Member States.


title: Case T-128/00: Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 192/25
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:            Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May                        Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in
     1999 of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to                                            the form of tablets — Application
     promote employment published in Official Journal of the                                           No 949610
     European Communities L 42 of 15 February 2000;
                                                                         Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
— In the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the operative                                          Agreement (in particular, washing
     part of the Decision, to the extent to which they do not                                          and bleaching preparations for
     exclude from the declaration of incompatibility with                                              laundry use; cleaning prep-
     the common market other types of financial aid for                                                arations, preparations for the
     employment which are shown in the present proceedings                                             washing of dishes, soaps, per-
     to be compatible with the common market; consequently,                                            fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,
     annul in respect of the same types of financial aid for                                           hair lotions, dentifrices)
     employment Article 3 of the operative part of the Decision
     in so far as it improperly requires recovery of the aid             Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
     already paid;                                                       before the Board of           examiner
                                                                         Appeal:
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation 40/94.
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support
The contentions and principal arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-124/00 FAID Federdistribuzione and
Others v Commission.
                                                                         Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
                                                                         Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-129/00)
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble                                            (2000/C 192/48)
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                         Internal Market
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                         (Case T-128/00)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                         (2000/C 192/47)                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &
                                                                         Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                                                                         G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Netherlands.
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &                     — annul Decision R508/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and                       of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,                      Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
Netherlands.                                                                 Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
— annul Decision R506/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
     of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the         Pleas in law and main arguments
     Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
     Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and                         Trademark condensed:          Three dimensional trademark in
                                                                                the form of tablets — Application
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                                                     No 949990


title: Case C-189/14: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias — Cyprus) — Bogdan Chain v Atlanco LTD

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/24

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias — Cyprus) — Bogdan Chain v Atlanco LTD
   (Case C-189/14) (1)

   (2015/C 320/33)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2000 in Case C-376/98: Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Directive 98/43/EC — Advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products — Legal basis — Article 100a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC))

text:
25.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/21
      —     did not communicate all the information required by             M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
            Annex XII to Directive 93/38 as regards the six calls for       Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
            competition published in the Official Journal of the            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October
            European Communities,                                           2000, in which it:
      —     did not communicate to the Commission the information           1.     Dismisses the application;
            required regarding the award of all the contracts comprised
            in that work above the threshold laid down in Article           2.     Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
            14(10), second subparagraph, last sentence, of Directive               the costs.
            93/38,
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
      Articles 4(2) and 14(1), (10) and (13) together with Articles
      21(1) and (5), 24(1) and (2) and 25(5) of that directive;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the
      French Republic to bear their own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                                of 5 October 2000
                                                                            in Case C-376/98: Federal Republic of Germany v Euro-
                                                                              pean Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            (Directive 98/43/EC — Advertising and sponsorship of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      tobacco products — Legal basis — Article 100a of the EC
                                                                                Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC))
                          of 5 October 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 335/39)
in Case C-337/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Public procurement contracts
in the transport sector — Directive 93/38/EEC — Applica-
bility ratione temporis — Rennes urban district light railway               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
project — Contract awarded by negotiated procedure without                                      in the European Court Reports)
                   a prior call for competition)
                                                                            In Case C-376/98: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                           (2000/C 335/38)                                  C.-D. Quassowski assisted by J. Sedemund) v European Parlia-
                                                                            ment (Agents: C. Pennera and N. Lorenz) and Council of the
                                                                            European Union (Agents: R. Gosalbo Bono, A. Feeney and
                     (Language of the case: French)                         S. Marquardt) supported by French Republic (Agents: initially
                                                                            J.-F. Dobelle and R. Loosli-Surrans, and then K. Rispal-Bellanger
                                                                            and R. Loosli-Surrans) and by Republic of Finland, (Agents:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      H. Rotkirch and T. Pynnä) and by United Kingdom of Great
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: M. Ewing and N. Paines)
                                                                            and by Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case C-337/98: Commission of the European Communities                    I. Martı́nez del Peral and U. Wölker) — application for the
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                     annulment of Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament
Bellanger and A. Viéville-Bréville ) — application for a                    and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of
declaration that, by its decision of 22 November 1996 to                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
award the turnkey contract for the Rennes urban district light              Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of
railway project to Matra-Transport, the French Republic has                 tobacco products (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 9) — the Court,
failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive                    composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement                      de Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and
procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport            R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84), and                  C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann,
Articles 4(2) and 20(2)(c) thereof in particular — the Court,               H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho             Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and
de Almeida and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers),                          L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,                    judgment on 5 October, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/22                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
1.    Annuls Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and             Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the
      of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member        making-up by volume of certain pre-packaged liquids, amended by
      States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco        Council Directive 79/1005/EEC of 23 November 1979, Council
      products;                                                            Directive 85/10/EEC of 18 December 1984, Council Directive
                                                                           88/316/EEC of 7 June 1988 and Council Directive 89/676/EEC
2.    Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the                of 21 December 1989, must be construed as not allowing Member
      European Union to pay the costs, and the French Republic, the        States to prohibit, by means of legislation such as the Belgian Royal
      Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain             Decree of 16 February 1982 relating to the ranges of nominal
      and Northern Ireland and the Commission of the European              quantities and nominal volumes of contents authorised for certain
      Communities to bear their own costs.                                 prepackaged products, the marketing of any prepackage having a
                                                                           nominal volume which is not mentioned in Annex III, column I, to
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                 that directive.
                                                                           Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
                                                                           must be construed as precluding a Member State from prohibiting
                                                                           the marketing of a prepackage having a nominal volume not included
                                                                           in the Community range, which is lawfully manufactured and
                                                                           marketed in another Member State, unless such a prohibition is
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     designed to meet an overriding requirement relating to consumer
                                                                           protection, applies without distinction to national and imported
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                  products alike, is necessary in order to meet the requirement in
                                                                           question and is proportionate to the objective pursued, and that
                        of 12 October 2000                                 objective cannot be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of
                                                                           intra-Community trade.
in Case C-3/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce de Bruxelles): Cidrerie Ruwet                     (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
        SA v Cidre Stassen SA and HP Bulmer Ltd (1)
(Free movement of goods — Directive 75/106/EEC — Partial
harmonisation — Prepackaged liquids —Making-up by
volume — Cider — Prohibition by a Member State of
       nominal volumes not mentioned by the directive)
                           (2000/C 335/40)                                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 28 June 2000
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           in Case C-116/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     the Cour d’Appel, Paris): criminal proceedings against
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                Claude Laguillaumie (1)
In Case C-3/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                             (Preliminary rulings — Inadmissibility)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Commerce (Commercial Court), Brussels for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                           (2000/C 335/41)
Cidrerie Ruwet SA and Cidre Stassen SA, HP Bulmer Ltd — on
the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 28 EC), and on the validity and                                        (Language of the case: French)
interpretation of Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 Decem-
ber 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepack-             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
aged liquids (OJ 1975 L 42, p. 1), amended by Council                                          in the European Court Reports)
Directive 79/1005/EEC of 23 November 1979 (OJ 1979
L 308, p. 25), Council Directive 85/10/EEC of 18 December                  In Case C-116/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
1984 (OJ 1985 L 4, p. 20), Council Directive 88/316/EEC of                 from the Cour d’appel (Court of Appeal), Paris, for a prelimi-
7 June 1988 (OJ 1988 L 143, p. 26) and Council Directive                   nary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that
89/676/EEC of 21 December 1989 (OJ 1989 L 398, p. 18)                      court against Claude Laguillaumie — on the interpretation of
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                       Articles 30 and 36 (now Articles 28 and 30 EC), Articles 85
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and               and 86 (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) of the EC Treaty, Council
R. Schintgen, Judges, N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louter-            Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                procedure for the provision of information in the field of
given a judgment on 12 October 2000, in which it has ruled:                technical standards and regulations (OJ L 109, p. 8), Council


title: Case C-432/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2012 by Leifheit AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-334/10 Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/12

         Appeal brought on 24 September 2012 by Leifheit AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-334/10 Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-432/12 P)
   2012/C 355/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Leifheit AG (represented by: V. Töbelmann and G. Hasselblatt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vermop Salmon GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 in Case T-334/10;

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 May 2010 in Case R 924/2009-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice, before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal, together with the costs incurred by the appellant;
               in the event that Vermop Salmon GmbH intervenes in the proceedings before it, the appellant further claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               order the intervener to pay its own costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 should be set aside, since the General Court erred in law by misconstruing the scope of the examination to be made by the Board of Appeal in appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 63(1) and Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. (1)

   The General Court failed to take account of the principle of functional continuity between the different instances of OHIM and wrongly found that complaints brought expressly can also not relieve the Board of Appeal of its duty to examine in full the findings of fact and law in the contested decision.
   The General Court ultimately based its judgment on the finding that the issue of genuine use of the earlier mark was a specific preliminary issue which it was not necessary for the Board of Appeal to examine. In doing so, the General Court wrongly overlooked the fact that the issue of requiring evidence of lawful use forms part of opposition proceedings and, as such, falls within the scope of the examination to be made by the Board of Appeal.
   In addition, the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark by misapplying the general principles for assessing the likelihood of confusion. In particular, in its assessment of the similarity of the signs, the General Court based its findings on the empirical rule that consumers place more emphasis on the beginning of words than on the other parts of marks, without assessing whether that rule was applicable in this case. Furthermore, the General Court did not sufficiently assess the appellant’s claim relating to the similarity of the goods. Moreover, it adopted the findings of the Board of Appeal without first assessing their accuracy.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 May 2000 in Case C-106/98 P: Comité d'entreprise de la Société française de production and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Natural and legal persons — Directly and individually concerned by the measure — State aid — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market — Trade unions and works councils)

text:
C 233/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
mann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm                the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,              D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) (Presi-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  dents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
23 May 2000, in which it has ruled:                                        chet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,
                                                                           Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von
The derogation for which Article 7(1) (a) of Council Directive             Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 May
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation             2000, in which it:
of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of
social security provides must be interpreted as not applying to a          1.   Dismisses the appeal;
benefit such as the early old-age pension on account of incapacity for
work for which a qualifying age which differs according to sex was
introduced into national legislation after expiry of the period            2.   Orders the works council of SFP, Syndicat National de
prescribed for transposition of that directive.                                 Radiodiffusion et de Télévision CGT, Syndicat Unifié de Radio
                                                                                et de Télévision CFDT, Syndicat National Force Ouvrière de
                                                                                Radiodiffusion et de Télévision and Syndicat National de
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       l’Encadrement Audiovisuel CFE-CGC to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 23 May 2000
in Case C-106/98 P: Comité d’entreprise de la Société
française de production and Others v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Appeal — Natural and legal persons — Directly and
individually concerned by the measure — State aid —                                                of 23 May 2000
Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market
              — Trade unions and works councils)
                                                                           in Case C-196/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Social Security Commissioner): Regina Virginia
                           (2000/C 233/15)
                                                                           Hepple and Others v Adjudication Officer, Adjudication
                                                                                Officer v Anna Stec and Others (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women
                                                                           in matters of social security — Benefits under an accident
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           at work and occupational disease insurance scheme —
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                Introduction of a link to retirement age)
In Case C-106/98 P: Comité d’entreprise de la Société française
de production, having its registered office in Bry-sur-Marne                                       (2000/C 233/16)
(France), Syndicat national de radiodiffusion et de télévision
CGT (SNRT-CGT), having its registered office in Paris, Syndicat
unifié de radio et de télévision CFDT (SURT-CFDT), having its                                 (Language of the case: English)
registered office in Paris, Syndicat national Force ouvrière de
radiodiffusion et de télévision, having its registered office in
Paris, Syndicat national de l’encadrement audiovisuel CFE-                 In Case C-196/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
CGC (SNEA-CFE-CGC), having its registered office in Paris,                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Social Security
represented by H. Masse-Dessen, lawyer with right of audience              Commissioner, United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in
before the French Conseil d’État and Cour de Cassation, with              the proceedings pending before that court between Regina
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    Virginia Hepple and Others v Adjudication Officer, Adjudica-
G. Thomas, 77, Boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte —                       tion Officer v Anna Stec and Others — on the interpretation of
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 18 February                   1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of
1998 in Case T-189/97 Comité d’Entreprise de la Société                    equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
Française de Production and Others v Commission [1998]                     security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — the Court, composed
ECR II-335, seeking to have that order set aside — the other               of: G.C. Rodrı́guez, President, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón,
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                 Presidents of Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puis-
Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and D. Triantafyllou) —                      sochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2001 in Case T-183/98: Jean-François Ferrandi v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Transfer of pension rights — Weighting for old-age pension — Protection against the risk of sickness — Invalidity pension — Force of res judicata)

text:
19.5.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/21
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs together with                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      those of the applicant in the main proceedings and in the
      application for interim relief;                                                              of 8 February 2001
3.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
                                                                           in Case T-183/98: Jean-François Ferrandi v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.98.
                                                                           (Officials — Transfer of pension rights — Weighting for
                                                                           old-age pension — Protection against the risk of sickness —
                                                                                Invalidity pension — Force of res judicata)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/39)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                       of 20 February 2001
                                                                           In Case T-183/98: Jean-François Ferrandi, former official at the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in Ajaccio
in Case T-112/98: Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Com-                         (France), represented by J.-B. Giuseppi, avocat, with an address
           mission of the European Communities (1)                         for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-
(Action for annulment — Competition — Decision to request                  Duvieusart) — application for, first, annulment of the decision
information — Periodic penalty payments — Right to refuse                  of the Commission to reject the applicant’s requests for his
to provide answers that imply admission of an infringement                 pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of
— Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                        the European Communities to be transferred, the weighting
                      Fundamental Freedoms)                                applicable to his old-age pension to be recalculated, for
                                                                           protection against the risk of sickness and for an invalidity
                                                                           pension and, secondly, for compensation for harm caused as a
                          (2001/C 150/38)
                                                                           result of those requests having been refused — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Single Judge: P. Mengozzi); H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                           gave a judgment on 8 February 2001, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           1.    dismisses the application;
In Case T-112/98: Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, established
at Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by M. Klus-                  2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
mann and K. Moosecker, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and M. Hilf) — application                 (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.99.
for annulment of Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May
1998 relating to a procedure under Article 11(5) of Council
Regulation No 17 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber,
Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February
2001, in which it:                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May 1998                                         of 1 February 2001
      relating to a procedure under Article 11(5) of Council
      Regulation No 17, in so far as it relates to the last indent of
      each of questions 1.6, 1.7 and 2.3 and to question 1.8 of the        in Case T-1/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of
      request for information sent to the applicant on 13 August                            the European Communities (1)
      1997;
                                                                           (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
                                                                              Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)
3.    Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds
      of the costs of the applicant, which shall bear the remaining                                  (2001/C 150/40)
      third.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.98.
                                                                           In Case T-1/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
                                                                           Hamburg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt,


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-500/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/34/EC — Technical standards and regulations — National rules applicable to recreational craft)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-500/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 98/34/EC - Technical standards and regulations - National rules applicable to recreational craft)
   (2005/C 271/10)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-500/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. I. Fernandes and M. J. Lois) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 November 2003 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and P. Kűris (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting Ministerial Decree No 783/98 of 19 September 1998 without having notified it to the Commission of the European Communities at the draft stage, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and the rules on information society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-189/09: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Poloplast v OHIM — Polypipe (P) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark P — Earlier figurative Community marks P and P POLYPIPE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Poloplast v OHIM — Polypipe (P)
   (Case T-189/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark P - Earlier figurative Community marks P and P POLYPIPE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 355/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG (Leonding, Austria) (represented by: G. Bruckmüller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Polypipe Ltd (Edlington, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially K.E. Gilbert and M.H. Blair, Solicitors, subsequently K.E. Gilbert, M.H. Blair and S.S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2009 (Case R 80/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Polypipe Ltd and Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Polypipe Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-597/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Total SA v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Infringement committed by a subsidiary wholly owned by the parent company — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its subsidiary — Liability of the parent company arising solely from the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary — Judgment reducing the fine imposed on the subsidiary — Effects on the legal situation of the parent company)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Total SA v European Commission
   (Case C-597/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Infringement committed by a subsidiary wholly owned by the parent company - Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its subsidiary - Liability of the parent company arising solely from the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary - Judgment reducing the fine imposed on the subsidiary - Effects on the legal situation of the parent company))
   (2015/C 371/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Total SA (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and É. Lagathu, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Total v Commission (T-548/08, EU:T:2013:434) in so far as it did not bring the fine imposed on Total SA into line with the fine imposed on Total Raffinage Marketing SA by the judgment in Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission (T-566/08, EU:T:2013:423);

               2)

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3)

               Sets the fine imposed on Total SA jointly and severally with Total Raffinage Marketing SA in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article [81 EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes) at EUR 12 5 4 59  842;

               4)

               Orders Total SA to bear three quarters of the costs of the European Commission and of its own costs relating to the present appeal and the proceedings at first instance;

               5)

               Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs and of the costs of Total SA relating to the present appeal and the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case T-174/98: Action brought on 20 October 1998 by the Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 160/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co, represented by
                                                                            Bernard O’Connor and Bonefacio Garcı́a Porras, with an
                           of 14 April 1999                                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
                                                                            Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie Adélaïde.
in Case T-50/98: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of the
                     European Communities (1)                               The applicants claim that the Court should:
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of                        — declare void, pursuant to articles 173 and 174 of the EC
comparative merits — Assessment criteria — Action for                           Treaty, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1721/98 in so far
                 annulment — Action for damages)                                as it affects the applicants, or in the alternative to declare
                                                                                the said regulation void erga omnes,
                           (1999/C 160/38)
                                                                            — order the Commission, pursuant to articles 178 and 215
                                                                                of the EC Treaty, to make good any damage, with interest
                      (Language of the case: French)                            thereon, caused to the applicants by the wrongful adoption
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 1721/98, and
In Case T-50/98: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at Dal-                    — to declare that the Commission pay the cost incurred in
heim (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                       the making of this application.
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the latter’s Chambers, 108, route de Longwy, v. Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-                    Pleas in law and main arguments
Kayser, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro) — application, first, for
annulment of the decision of the Commission not to promote
the applicant to grade A 4 in the 1997 promotions procedure                 The present application concerns the administration by the
and instead to promote the 118 officials considered to be the               Commission of the rules governing the allocation of the annual
most deserving of promotion and, second, for compensation                   licence entitlement to the applicants for the import of bananas
for the damage alleged — the Court of First Instance (Second                within the third-country tariff rate quota established by article
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                        18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
A. Potocki and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,               1993 (as amended), on the common organisation of the
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 April 1999, in                market in bananas (1). The application arises out of the
which it:                                                                   adoption, by the Commission, of an excessively severe
                                                                            reduction coefficient based on what the applicants suppose to
1. annuls the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant            be an incorrect figure for reference quantity which reduces
     to grade A 4 in the 1997 promotions procedure,                         their licence entitlement for the 1998 marketing year. The
                                                                            applicants claim that this reference quantity is significantly
2. dismisses the application for annulment of the Commission’s              higher than the highest possible figure for reference quantity.
     decision to promote, in the context of the same procedure, the
     officials considered to be most deserving of promotion,                They point out in this regard that the difference between the
                                                                            figures given in the licence for actual imports and the reference
3. dismisses the claim for damages,                                         quantities for the reference period 1994 to 1996 is in the
                                                                            region of 13 %.
4. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            The applicants claim that the application of incorrect reduction
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.                                                     coefficients deprives them of their legal right to import
                                                                            bananas up to the maximum of their legal entitlement. In
                                                                            addition, the non-importation of Category A bananas in 1998
                                                                            would still mean that they are also deprived of their future
                                                                            entitlement to import Category A bananas for those marketing
                                                                            years for which 1998 is a reference year.
Action brought on 20 October 1998 by the Comafrica
SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co against the                        They submit in this respect that the fixing by the Commission
          Commission of the European Communities                            of the definitive reduction coefficient on the basis of such
                                                                            incorrect information is manifestly unlawful. It will give rise
                                                                            to gradual erosion of the applicant’s import rights and will
                            (Case T-174/98)                                 result in the loss of all rights to operate in the banana market.
                                                                            That erosion infringes the applicant’s fundamental rights
                           (1999/C 160/39)                                  protected by Community law, such as the right to property
                                                                            and the right to pursue a professional or trade activity.
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            (1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 October 1998 by Comafrica


title: Case F-31/07: Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/38

         Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission
   (Case F-31/07)
   (2007/C 117/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (XX) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report (‘CDR’) concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, including appeal procedures and other decisions relating to them, and specifically of section 6.5, ‘Potential’, in so far as it does not accept that the applicant has the potential to carry out functions in category B*;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her appeal, the applicant puts forward, first, the fact that the administration made manifest errors of assessment in so far as it did not accept that she had the potential to carry out functions in category B* for the purpose of the attestation procedure provided for in Article 10(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’). In particular, in contrast to what was stated in the applicant's CDR, her duties as head of computer training fall within the scope of category B*.
   Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of respect for the rights of the defence, transparency, the audi alteram partem rule and the principle of sound administration of staff. In particular, she submits that some documents used for the purposes of her appraisal were not communicated to her at the appropriate time.
   Thirdly, the applicant raises the infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and of the duty to give reasons.
   Fourthly, the applicant alleges the infringement of the principle of equal treatment of staff and non-discrimination, in so far as the duties carried out by a head of computer training, she submits, are assessed in different ways for the purposes of the attestation procedure depending on the directorates general and the hierarchical superiors.


title: Case C-121/01 P: Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by Eoghan O'Hannrachain against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99 between M. Chamier and E. O'Hannrachain and the European Parliament

text:
C 150/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of                  Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by Eoghan O’Hannra-
         the European Communities against Ireland                     chain against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
                                                                      by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-
                                                                      99/99 between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the
                         (Case C-120/01)                                                      European Parliament
                                                                                (Case C-121/01 P)
                         (2001/C 150/26)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/27)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
Justice of the European Communities on 16 March 2001 by               by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission of the European Communities, represented               European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address            between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the European
for service in Luxembourg.                                            Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 19 March 2001 by E. O’Hannra-
                                                                      chain, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the
                                                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Brussels.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing by 16 September 1999 to prepare        —     set aside the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001 by
      and communicate to the Commission the plans, outlines                 the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the EC
      and summaries required pursuant to Article 11 and                     in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99;
      Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) on the
      disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinat-              —     consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought
      ed terphenyls (PCB/PCT), Ireland has failed to fulfil its                   by him in the proceedings at first instance, and thus:
      obligations under that Directive;
                                                                            —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 16 July
                                                                                1998 appointing Mr. L.V. to the post of Director-
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             General of the Directorate-General for Finance and
                                                                                Financial Control and the decision of the same date
                                                                                rejecting the appellant’s application for the post and,
                                                                                in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision
                                                                                adopted on 21 January 1999 rejecting the appellant’s
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   complaint;
                                                                            —     order the respondent to pay damages estimated to
                                                                                amount, on a fair and equitable basis, to
Article 11 of the Directive requires Member States to draw up                     100 000 euro;
plans and outlines in connection with the decontamination or
disposal of equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls            —     order the respondent to pay the costs.
(PCBs), and to communicate these plans and outlines to the
Commission. Article 4(1) obliges Member States to compile
inventories of equipment with certain PCB volumes and to
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
send summaries of such inventories to the Commission.
                                                                      —     Infringement of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                            officials: the Court of First Instance misconstrued
To date Ireland has not communicated such plans, outlines                   Article 29 of the Staff Regulations by taking the view that
and summaries to the Commission, nor is the Commission in                   the appointing authority may have recourse to the
possession of any other information enabling it to conclude                 procedure referred to in Article 29(2) of the Staff
that Ireland has prepared these plans, outlines and summaries.              Regulations after initiating a recruitment procedure under
                                                                            Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations without first
                                                                            carrying out an examination of the comparative merits of
                                                                            the eligible candidates under Article 29(1) with a view to
(1) OJ L 243, 24.09.1996, p. 31.                                            verifying whether they meet the requirements of the
                                                                            notice of vacancy. By acting in that way, the appointing
                                                                            authority failed to examine whether, in the present case
                                                                            and in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                            the promotion/transfer procedure was likely to result in
                                                                            the appointment of a person possessing the highest levels
                                                                            of ability, efficiency and integrity.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 150/15
—     Disregard of the principle of legality, of the duty to give a      Action brought on 19 March 2001 by the Commission of
      statement of reasons and of the audi alteram partem rule,          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      on account of the acceptance of documents drawn up
      after the adoption of the contested decision.
—     Failure to have regard to the obligation to provide a                                        (Case C-127/01)
      statement of reasons and violation of the effects attaching
      to a vacancy notice: the factual assessment carried out by
      the Court of First Instance concerning the qualifications
      and experience of Mr L.V. results in an error of law                                         (2001/C 150/29)
      consisting of the attribution to him of qualifications
      corresponding to the requirements of the vacancy notice.
      Thus, the Court of First Instance disregarded the effects          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      arising from a notice of vacancy.                                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     Failure to have regard to the notion of misuse of powers.          represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Maria
                                                                         Patakia, of its Legal Service.
—     Failure to have regard to Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
      Regulations and to the principle of non-discrimination:
      since Mr L.V. did not possess the appropriate qualifi-
      cations, he was in any event incapable of being compared           The Commission claims that the Court should:
      with other candidates who did.
—     Failure to have regard to the principle of sound manage-           —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
      ment and proper administration, and breach of the                        Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
      obligation to provide a statement of reasons.                            regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                               comply fully with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 Octo-
                                                                               ber 1998 (1) amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission
                                                                               to the occupation of road haulage operator and road
                                                                               passenger transport operator and mutual recognition
                                                                               of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
                                                                               qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                         the right to freedom of establishment in national and
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 12                         international transport operations, the Hellenic Republic
March 2001 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
Strobl, (2) the Mayor of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer
                 agent of the Land of Salzburg
                                                                         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-123/01)
                        (2001/C 150/28)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 12 March 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 19 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the               The Member States are required by the binding character of
appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich Strobl, (2) the Mayor            the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC to
of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer agent of the Land of              adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
Salzburg on the following question:                                      law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
                                                                         purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be          the Commission. That time-limit expired on 1 October
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36           1999 without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land              Commission the provisions transposing the directive in ques-
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGB1.                  tion into national law.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the           (1) OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998.
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?


title: Case C-84/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on  10 February 2006  — Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) v 1. Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, 2. Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, 3. Weleda Nederland NV and 4. Wala Nederland NV

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 10 February 2006 — Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) v 1. Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, 2. Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, 3. Weleda Nederland NV and 4. Wala Nederland NV
   (Case C-84/06)
   (2006/C 108/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) (State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport))

      Defendants: 1. Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, 2. Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, 3. Weleda Nederland NV and 4. Wala Nederland NV
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use oblige Member States to make anthroposophic medicinal products which are not at the same time homeopathic medicinal products subject to the requirements in respect of authorisation as set out in Title III, Chapter 1, of that directive?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the Netherlands statutory provision which makes those anthroposophic medicinal products subject to the aforementioned requirements in respect of authorisation an exception to the prohibition under Article 28 EC which is authorised by virtue of Article 30 EC?

      (1)  OJ L 311, p. 67.


title: Case T-340/08 P: Appeal brought on 14 August 2008 by Marianne Timmer against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/43

         Appeal brought on 14 August 2008 by Marianne Timmer against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-340/08 P)
   (2008/C 285/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Marianne Timmer (Saint-Sauves-d'Auvergne, France) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the order of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Marianne Timmer v Court of Auditors;

               —

               Uphold the claim for compensation for loss suffered;

               —

               Uphold the claim for costs against the Court of Auditors.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal, the applicant seeks annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors whereby the Tribunal dismissed as inadmissible her action claiming, first that the Tribunal should annul her staff reports for the period 1984 to 1997 along with the connected and/or subsequent decisions, including that appointing the reporting officer concerned to the position of Head of the Dutch Unit in the Translation Department of the Court of Auditors and, second, a claim for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered.
   In support of her appeal, the applicant relies on six pleas in law alleging:

               —

               distortion the facts capable of being inferred from the evidence submitted to the Tribunal and error in assigning the burden of proof;

               —

               distortion of the applicant's request to the appointing authority of 29 July 2005 concerning compliance with Article 14 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities in the version in force prior to the modification thereof by the entry into force Regulation No 723/2004 (1) inasmuch as that request did not seek the re-examination of the applicant's staff reports as indicated at paragraph 37 of the order under appeal;

               —

               error in the legal classification of the pre-litigation complaint of 26 February 2006, the aim of which was the annulment of the staff reports and the decision on the applicant's career and not ‘taking into account of numerous other new facts’ (paragraph 41 of the order under appeal);

               —

               failure to state reasons for the decision to reject the complaint;

               —

               in the alternative, failure to state sufficient reasons for that decision to reject, inasmuch as the Tribunal should have examined the insufficiency of the reasons stated;

               —

               error in the application of the case-law regarding the unlawful exercise of activities by the applicant's hierarchical superior, since the applicant did not claim that those staff reports were vitiated by the unlawfulness of the appointment of her hierarchical superior, but by the unlawful occupation of a position which the applicant could have held and by the personal interest of her hierarchical superiors (paragraph 42 of the order under appeal).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case T-11/17: Action brought on 6 January 2017 — RK v Council

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/13

         Action brought on 6 January 2017 — RK v Council
   (Case T-11/17)
   (2017/C 095/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RK (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

         as a result,

               —

               annul the undated decision of the Council, adopted on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of 27 September 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 29 April 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, based on an objection of illegality directed against Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, as implemented by the Staff Note No 71/15 of the Council, and factual and legal inaccuracies and irregularities vitiating the contested decisions;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, and infringement of the rights of the defence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials, and infringement of the principle of sound administration.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello di Napoli by order of that court of 29 October 1998 in the case brought by Alfredo Albore (Case C-423/98)

text:
20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/9
van State (Council of State) of 19 November 1998,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
received at the Court Registry on 23 November 1998, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of W. N. against
Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn on the following questions:         (a) declare that the Italian Republic
1. Must the words a loss of tax' in Article 4(1)(a) of
                                                                        Ð by requiring family members of beneficiaries of
     Council Directive 77/799/EEC (1) be interpreted as
                                                                            Directive 90/364/EEC (1) to have resources
     meaning that the loss of tax in question necessarily
                                                                            one-third higher in amount than the minimum
     arises from an express act on the part of the
                                                                            which family members of beneficiaries of Directive
     competent authority of another Member State?
                                                                            90/365/EEC (2) must have;
2. How should the word abnormaal' in the Dutch
     version of that provision be interpreted in that                   Ð by limiting the methods of proof which may be
     connection?                                                            submitted and, in particular, by providing that
                                                                            certain documents must be issued or certified by
                                                                            the authorities of another Member State; and
3. If Article 4(1)(a) is not applicable, can Article 4(3) of
     the directive give rise to an obligation to exchange
     information spontaneously?                                         Ð by requiring students, who are citizens of other
                                                                            Member States, requesting recognition of their
                                                                            right of residence in Italy within the meaning of
(1) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977, p. 15.                                            Directive 93/96/EEC (3) and members of their
                                                                            family to guarantee to the Italian authorities that
                                                                            they have resources of a certain amount and, as
                                                                            regards the means to be used for that purpose, not
                                                                            clearly leaving the student a choice between
                                                                            making a declaration or such alternative means as
                                                                            are at least equivalent, and by not allowing the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello
                                                                            declaration to be used where the student is
di Napoli by order of that court of 29 October 1998 in
                                                                            accompanied by members of his family
             the case brought by Alfredo Albore
                       (Case C-423/98)
                        (1999/C 48/17)                                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                        above-mentioned Council Directives 90/364/EEC (1),
                                                                        90/365/EEC (2) and 93/96/EEC (3);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello
di Napoli (Appeal Court, Naples) of 29 October 1998,                (b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 November
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case brought by
Alfredo Albore on a question as to the compatibility of
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Article 18 of Law No 898/1976, as amended by Article 9
of Law No 104/1990, with Articles 6, 52 and 67 of the
Treaty.
                                                                    Ð The amount of family members' income
                                                                        The Commission considers that by requiring family
                                                                        members of beneficiaries of Directive 90/364/EEC to
                                                                        have resources one-third higher in amount than the
Action brought on 25 November 1998 by the Commission                    minimum which family members of beneficiaries of
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic               Directive 90/365/EEC must have, the Italian Republic
                       (Case C-424/98)                                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive
                                                                        90/364/EEC.
                        (1999/C 48/18)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before           Ð The documents which beneficiaries of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     Directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC
25 November 1998 by the Commission of the European                      must submit
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                    The Commission considers that, by limiting the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               methods of proof which may be submitted, and by


title: Case T-218/05: Action brought on 7 June 2005 by Bustec Ireland Limited Partnership against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/44

         Action brought on 7 June 2005 by Bustec Ireland Limited Partnership against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-218/05)
   (2005/C 182/82)
   Language in which the application was submitted: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 2005 by Bustec Ireland Limited Partnership, represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri and Antonio Castán Peréz-Goméz, lawyers.
   Mustek, S.L. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 March 2005 in Case R 1125/2004-2;

               2.

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark BUSTEC — Application No 1644939, for goods in Classes 9, 35 and 42

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Mustek, S.L.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Spanish word mark MUSTEK (No 1550684) for goods in Class 9

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition allowed

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal, on the ground that the applicant did not file the requisite written statement setting out the grounds of appeal within the period of four months provided for in Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of the rights of the defence and incorrect interpretation of Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark