title: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2000 in Case C-337/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Public procurement contracts in the transport sector — Directive 93/38/EEC — Applicability ratione temporis — Rennes urban district light railway project — Contract awarded by negotiated procedure without a prior call for competition)

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:


title: Case C-10/09: Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/20

         Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-10/09)
   (2009/C 55/33)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Cattabriga and M. Teles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC (1) of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells or, at any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into domestic law expired on 1 September 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32.


title: Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000 in Case C-352/98 P: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Adoption of Directive 95/34/EC)

text:
21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 302/9
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 4 July 2000                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 July 2000
in Case C-352/98 P: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
derm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                               in Case C-45/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
                 Adoption of Directive 95/34/EC)                           (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1992 and 1993
                                                                                financial years)
                           (2000/C 302/15)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/16)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-45/97: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
In Case C-352/98 P: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm
                                                                           Lapuerta) v Commission of the European Communities
SA, in liquidation, established at Rungis, France, and Jean-
                                                                           (Agents: A.M. Alves Vieira and B. Vilá Costa) — application
Jacques Goupil, residing at Chevreuse, France, represented by
                                                                           for partial annulment of Commission Decision 96/701/EC of
J.-P. Spitzer and Y.-M. Moray, of the Paris Bar, with an address
                                                                           20 November 1996 amending Decision 96/311/EC on the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398
                                                                           clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
Route d’Esch — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                           respect of the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section
First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber)
                                                                           of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
of 16 July 1998 in Case T-199/96 Bergaderm and Goupil v
                                                                           (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ
Commission [1998] ECR II-2805, seeking to have that judg-
                                                                           1996 L 323, p. 26), as regards the part thereof relating to
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being
                                                                           Spain — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kap-
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: P. Van
                                                                           teyn, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch
Nuffel, assisted by A. Barav), supported by French Republic
                                                                           (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) — the
                                                                           General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                           2000, in which it:
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and
R. Schintgen, (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-R. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, V. Skou-             1.    Annuls Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 November
ris and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;                        1996 amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance of the
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                     accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
trar, has given a judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it:                          expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                                Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
                                                                                respect of certain expenditure for 1993, as regards the part
1.     Dismisses the appeal;                                                     thereof relating to Spain, in so far as it refuses to charge to the
                                                                                EAGGF all of the aid granted to the Olivar de Segura
                                                                                Cooperative and to the undertaking Agroalimentaria Minerva;
2.     Orders Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA, in liqui-
       dation, and Jean-Jacques Goupil to pay the costs;
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.     Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                           3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.


title: Case C-340/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile di Genova by judgment of that court of 21 June 1999 in the case of TNT Traco SpA against Poste Italiano and Michele Carbone, Raffaele Ciriolo and Clemente Marino

text:
C 352/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.12.1999
1.     Do payments which a new shareholder, allowed to                      (a) requires undertakings, other than that on which the
acquire the new shares on an increase in capital (where the                     monopoly to operate the universal service has been
pre-emptive right of the existing shareholders is excluded),                    conferred, to pay, even when providing ‘non-universal’ or
does not make itself but makes through its parent company                       ‘value-added’ services, the postal dues payable for the basic
amount to ‘a contribution of assets of any kind’ within the                     ordinary postal service, which in such a case is not in
meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of                   actual fact provided by the monopoly-holder.
17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
capital? (1)
                                                                            (b) directly allocates the proceeds of those dues to the
                                                                                undertaking entrusted with the operation of the universal
2.     Do payments which a new shareholder, allowed to                          service, without there being any offsetting or control
acquire the new shares on an increase in capital (where the                     mechanism to preclude the allocation of cross-subsidies to
pre-emptive right of the existing shareholders is excluded),                    non-universal services.
makes not to the company increasing its capital but to its
subsidiary companies amount to ‘a contribution of assets of
any kind’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of Directive
69/335/EEC?
3.     Do payments which have not yet been made amount to
‘a contribution of assets of any kind’ within the meaning of
Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC?
4.     Is the capital duty to be paid by the company a ‘liability’
or ‘expense’ which, in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of
Directive 69/335/EEC, is to be deducted from the basis of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
assessment?                                                                 Korneuburg by order of 1 September 1999 in the case of
                                                                                SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v Rashad Wali
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
                                                                                (Case C-341/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/34)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                  European Communities by order of 1 September 1999 from
di Genova by judgment of that court of 21 June 1999 in                      the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)
the case of TNT Traco SpA against Poste Italiano and                        (Republic of Austria), which was received at the Court Registry
 Michele Carbone, Raffaele Ciriolo and Clemente Marino                      on 14 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                            SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v Rashad Wali on the following
                                                                            question:
                          (Case C-340/99)
                          (1999/C 352/33)                                   On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                                                                            Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
                                                                            down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Civile di                 counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
Genova (Genova District Court) of 21 June 1999, received at                 Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
the Court Registry on 13 September 1999, for a preliminary                  situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
ruling in the case of TNT Traco SpA v Poste Italiano and                    the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
Michele Carbone, Raffaele Ciriolo and Clemente Marino on the                the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
following questions:                                                        toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
                                                                            regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
Do the provisions of the EC Treaty, and in particular                       his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has its
Articles 86 and 90 thereof, preclude a Member State, in                     registered office in a non-member country?
organising its postal service, from maintaining in force legis-
lation which, though distinguishing between so-called ‘univer-
sal’ services in respect of which exclusive rights are conferred
on a private-law undertaking and non-universal services
offered and provided under a regime of free competition:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Foix, by judgment of that court of 21 April 1998 in the case of Société Critouridienne de Distribution v. Receveur Principal des Douanes (Case C-166/98)

text:
C 209/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionel (Criminal Court),              Are Council Directives 92/83 (1) and 92/84 (2) on the
Arlon, of 2 April 1998, received at the Court Registry on           harmonisation of excise duties invalid from the point of
29 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of              view of the EC Treaty and in particular the second
MinisteÁre Public (Public Prosecutor's Office) against AndreÂ       paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty, in that they
Mazzoleni Ð parties claiming damages: Eric Guillaume,
Michel Pedon, Christian Fondeur, Christian Simonin,                 Ð fix a minimum rate of tax on beer of ECU 1.87 per
JeÂrôme Canini; liable under civil law: Inter Surveillance              degree per hectolitre
Assistance SARL Ð on the following questions:
                                                                    Ð whereas they authorise taxation of wine by reference
Ð In Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and                  solely to the volume, with a minimum rate of zero,
     of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the
     posting of workers in the framework of the provision           thus requiring Member States to raise the tax on beer to
     of services (1), does the term period of posting'             the said minimum rate and so bringing about the creation
     encompass the part-time period spent, whether                  of tax differentials liable to discriminate between wine and
     randomly or not, by a frontier-zone worker who                 beer?
     comes from an undertaking in a Member State,
     performing, in the course of days, weeks or a month, a         (1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
     part of his services in the adjacent territory or              (2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.
     territories of one or more other Member States?
Ð Are Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be
     interpreted as being infringed where a Member State,
     for overriding reasons relating to the public interest,
     requires any undertaking from another Member State             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste
     employing persons, even temporarily, on the territory          Gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 15 April
     of the first State to comply with its legislation or           1998 in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank
     collective labour agreements relating to minimum               Girozentrale against Johannes Leon, acting as
     wages, where that interest is already protected by the         administrator of the assets of Grundstücks- und Baupro-
     rules of the State in which the service provider is            jektentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH in the insolvency
     established and workers there are already in a                             proceedings concerning that company
     comparable or similar position on the basis not solely
                                                                                (Case C-167/98)
     of the legislation relating to minimum wages but of
     the overall position (impact of taxation, welfare                                       (98/C 209/49)
     protection in relation to illness, including under the
     obligatory supplementary insurance which applies in            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     France, and to industrial accidents, widowhood,                European Communities by order of the Oberste
     unemployment, retirement and death)?                           Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Vienna, of 15 April 1998,
                                                                    received at the Court Registry on 30 April 1998, for a
Ð In the same context, put differently: are the temporary
                                                                    preliminary ruling in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank
     national obligations set for employees to be
                                                                    Girozentrale against Johannes Leon, acting as
     understood as solely the minimum hourly rate of pay
                                                                    administrator of the assets of Grundstücks- und Baupro-
     without assessing the overall position as regards the
                                                                    jektentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH in the insolvency
     welfare protection enjoyed by employees who are
                                                                    proceedings concerning that company, on the following
     required in their work to move from one State to
                                                                    question:
     another?
                                                                    Does the refusal to allow a mortgage to be created to
(1) OJ L 18, 24.1.1997, p. 1.
                                                                    cover an existing foreign-currency debt (in this case in
                                                                    German marks (DM)) constitute a restriction on the
                                                                    movement of capital and payments compatible with
                                                                    Article 73(b) of the EC Treaty?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance, Foix, by judgment of that court of
21 April 1998 in the case of SocieÂteÂ Critouridienne de
       Distribution v. Receveur Principal des Douanes
                                                                    Action brought on 4 May 1998 by the Grand Duchy of
                        (Case C-166/98)
                                                                    Luxembourg against the European Parliament and the
                         (98/C 209/48)                                             Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-168/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                                        (98/C 209/50)
Grande Instance (Regional Court), Foix (France), of
21 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry             An action against the European Parliament and the
on 29 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of           Council of the European Union was brought before the
SocieÂteÂ Critouridienne de Distribution v. Receveur                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May
Principal des Douanes on the following question:                    1998 by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by


title: Case T-314/10: Action brought on 19 July 2010 — Constellation Brands/OHMI (COOK'S)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/23

         Action brought on 19 July 2010 — Constellation Brands/OHMI (COOK'S)
   (Case T-314/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Constellation Brands, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 1048/2009-1;

               —

               Remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and order that restitutio in integrum be granted in respect of community trade mark application No 942128;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘COOK’S’

      Decision of the Trade Marks and Register Department: Rejected the request for restitutio in integrum and confirmed the cancellation of the Community trade mark registration No 942128

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in the application of this article and in its assessment of the facts in holding that the applicant’s representatives had failed to exercise due care in the circumstances.


title: Case T-514/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark FRUIT — Non-use — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT)
   (Case T-514/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark FRUIT - Non-use - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 227/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by S. Schäffner, subsequently by G. Schneider, subsequently by D. Botis, and finally by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Blueshore Management SA (Cernusco Sul Naviglio, Italy) (represented by: S. Corona and G. Ciccone, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2010 (Case R 1686/2008-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Blueshore Management SA and Fruit of the Loom, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fruit of the Loom, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM;

               3.

               Orders Blueshore Management SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case C-63/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 18 January 2000 in the case of 1. Land Baden-Württemberg v Günther Schilling, the Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht participating in the proceedings and 2. Bezirksregierung Lüneburg v Hans-Otto Nehring, the Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht participating in the proceedings

text:
C 135/4                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by the Commission                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  richt Innsbruck by order of that court of 15 February
                                                                          2000 in the case of Leopold Hein against Pensions-
                                                                                versicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
                          (Case C-49/00)
                                                                                (Case C-58/00)
                         (2000/C 135/05)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/06)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice on 16 February 2000 by the Commission of                 European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa,                 (Higher Regional Court) Innsbruck of 15 February 2000,
Legal Adviser, and Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, acting as        received at the Court Registry on 23 February 2000, for a
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office           preliminary ruling in the case of Leopold Hein against
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    Pensionversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (Employees’ Pension
                                                                          Insurance Institution) on the following question:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Is Article 10a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of
                                                                          14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
(a) Declare that:                                                         employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
                                                                          of their families moving within the Community, as amended
    — by failing to require employers to evaluate all health              and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
         and safety risks existing in the work place,                     2 June 1983, in conjunction with Annex IIa inserted by
                                                                          Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992(2), to
    — by allowing employers to decide whether or not to                   be interpreted as meaning that the care allowance under
         enlist external services for the adoption of protective          the Bundespflegegeldgesetz (federal care-allowance law) falls
         and preventive measures when the skills available                within the scope of that provision and is therefore a special
         within the undertaking are insufficient,                         non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a)
                                                                          of that regulation, with the result that the position of a person,
    — by failing to define the capabilities and aptitudes which           such as the applicant, who, after 1 June 1992, satisfied the
         the persons responsible for protective and preventive            conditions for the award of that benefit is governed exclusively
         measures against occupational risks to workers’ health           by the system of coordination established by the said Article
         and safety must possess,                                         10a?
    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under       (1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
    Article 6(3)(a) and 7(3), (5) and (8) of Council Directive            (2) OJ 1992 L 136, p. 1.
    89/391/EEC (1) of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
    measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
    health of workers at work;
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
                                                                          tungsgericht by order of 18 January 2000 in the case of
                                                                          1. Land Baden-Württemberg v Günther Schilling, the
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht par-
                                                                          ticipating in the proceedings and 2. Bezirksregierung
The Commission considers that the Italian legislation                     Lüneburg v Hans-Otto Nehring, the Oberbundesanwalt
implementing Directive 89/391/EEC is not sufficient to fulfil             beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht participating in the pro-
certain obligations imposed on the Member States by that                                               ceedings
directive. In particular, the Commission criticises the Italian
Republic for failing correctly and fully to give effect to the                                      (Case C-63/00)
following provisions of the directive:
                                                                                (2000/C 135/07)
— Article 6(3)(a);                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of 18 January 2000 by
— Article 7(3);                                                           the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
                                                                          which was received at the Court Registry on 28 February
— Article 7(5) and (8).                                                   2000, for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article
                                                                          10(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (1), as amended by
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 1648/95 (2): in the case of 1. Land Baden-
(1) OJ L 183 of 29.6.1989, p. 1.                                          Württemberg v Günther Schilling, the Oberbundesanwalt beim
                                                                          Bundesverwaltungsgericht participating in the proceedings and
                                                                          2. Bezirksregierung Lüneburg v Hans-Otto Nehring participat-
                                                                          ing in the proceedings on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/5
 Must there be a reduction in the amount of aid under the                The Commission therefore submits that the Italian Republic
second sentence of Article 10(2) even where the discrepancy              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive
laid down as a prerequisite in the first sentence thereof between        75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, and under
the number of animals declared and that found during checks              Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC.
is attributable not to incorrect information given by the aid
applicant but to the fact that in regard to individual animals
the authority does not accept that the criteria for the grant of         (1) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
premiums are met?
                                                                         (3) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(1) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 36.
(2) OJ L 156 of 7.7.1995, p. 27.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
Action brought on 25 February 2000 by the Commission                                                (Case C-68/00)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (2000/C 135/09)
                         (Case C-65/00)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                        (2000/C 135/08)                                  Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the            agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February              Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
represented by Lena Ström of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to that service,
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                         — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Kirchberg.
                                                                              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 97/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the Council of 27 October 1997 amending for the third
                                                                              time Directive 88/344/EEC (2) on the approximation of the
— Declare that, by exempting undertakings and establish-                      laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in
    ments which carry out hazardous waste recovery oper-                      the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients or, in
    ations covered by Directive 91/689/EEC (1) from the need                  any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those
    for authorisation provided for by Article 10 of Directive                 measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, with-                     that Directive; and,
    out making such exemption conditional upon satisfaction
    of the requirements laid down by Article 3(2), first                 — order Ireland to pay the costs.
    and second indents, of Directive 91/689/EEC, the Italian
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11
    of Directive 75/442/EEC (2), as amended by Directive                 Pleas in law and main arguments
    91/156/EEC (3), and under Article 3 of Directive
    91/689/EEC;                                                          Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
                                                                         a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-            upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
    ings.                                                                on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                         laid down in the directive. That period expired on 27 October
                                                                         1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                         the Commission.
The simplified procedures for establishments or undertakings
which recover the hazardous waste covered by Directive
                                                                         (1) OJ L 331 of 3.12.1997, p. 7.
91/689/EEC remain subject solely to the requirements laid                (2) Council Directive 88/344/EC of 13 June 1988, OJ L 157 of
down by the Ministerial Decrees of 5 September 1994 and 16                   24.6.1988, p. 28.
January 1995, which do not stipulate the requirements
provided for by Article 3(2), first and second indents, of
Directive 91/689/EEC.


title: Case T-81/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/47

         Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER)
   (Case T-81/14)
   2014/C 135/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: D. Stone and R. Allos, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smart Wines GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2013 given in Case R 903/2013-2;

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMARTWATER’ for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 400 194

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier Community trade mark registration No 5 853 601 for the word mark ‘SMART WINES’ for goods in Classes 30 and 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-392/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/82/EC — Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances — Article 11(1)(c) — Obligation to draw up external emergency plans — Time-limit)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-392/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Article 11(1)(c) - Obligation to draw up external emergency plans - Time-limit)
   2010/C 134/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Sipos, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) — Failure to draw up certain external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to which Article 9 of Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances applies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-517/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Grúas Roxu v Commission and SRB

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/21

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Grúas Roxu v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-517/17)
   (2017/C 357/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grúas Roxu, S.A. (Meres, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the following measures:

               —

               Decision (SRB/EES/2017/08) of the Single Resolution Board agreed at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.

               —

               Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 February 1995 in Case T-106/92: Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European Parliament (Officials - Temporary posting - Lawfulness - Infringement of Article 176 of the Treaty - Misuse of powers)

text:
 No C 74/10            ( EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25 . 3 . 95
 represented by Michel Gautreau, of the Paris Bar, with an              Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon, v. Commission of
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Rita              the European Communities (Agents : Julian Currall and
 Reichling, 11 Boulevard Royal, v. Commission of the                    Géraud de Bergues ) — application for the annulment of the
 European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and G. de                     Commission Decision of 12 November 1992 rejecting the
 Bergues ) — application for the annulment of the                       applications made by the applicants under Article 3 (2) of
 Commission Decision of 20 October 1992 rejecting the                   Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 17 of 6 February 1962, First
 application made by the applicant under Article 3 (2 ) of              Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 17 of 6 February 1962, First             Treaty ( 2 ), concerning the conduct of the Societe des
 Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the                      Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique — the Court
 Treaty (2 ), concerning the conduct of the Societe des                 of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz
 Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique — the Court               Vilaça, President, C. P. Briët, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. P. M.
 ( Second Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça,                     Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has
 President of the Chamber, C. P. Briët, A. Kalogeropoulos,              given a judgment on 24 January 1995 , in which it:
 D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 January 1995 , in
 which it:                                                              1 . annuls the Commission Decision of 12 November 1 992
                                                                              in so far as it rejects the applicants ' allegation that the
                                                                              market has been partitioned as a result of an alleged
 1 . annuls the Commission Decision of20 October 1 992 in                     agreement between Societe des Auteurs, Compositeurs
       so far as it rejects the. applicant's allegation that the              et Editeurs de Musique and the copyright-management
       market has been partitioned as a result of an alleged                  societies in the other Member States;
       agreement between Societe des Auteurs, Compositeurs
       et Editeurs de Musique and the copyright-management
       societies in the other Member States;                            2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
 2. dismisses the remainder of the application;                         3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                              one half of the applicant's costs, the applicants to bear
 3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                   the other half of their costs and the intervener to bear its
                                                                              own costs .
       one halfofthe applicant's costs, the applicant to bear the
       other half of its costs.
                                                                        0 ) OJ No C 43 , 16 . 2 . 1993 .
 (!) OJ No C 43 , 16 . 2 . 1993 .                                       ( 2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87.
 (2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 24 January 1995                                                      of 2 February 1995
in Case T-5/93 : Roger Tremblay, Francois Lucazeau and                 in Case T-106/92: Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European
Harry Kestenberg v. Commission of the European                                                     Parliament (M
                          Communities ( J )                             (Officials — Temporary posting — Lawfulness —
 (Competition — Copyright — Regulation (EEC) No 17 —                   Infringement of Article 1 76 of the Treaty — Misuse of
Rejection of a complaint — Obligations concerning the                                                 powers)
      investigation of complaints — Community interest)                                             95/C 74/19 )
                            ( 95/C 74/18 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-106/92 : Erik Dan Frederiksen, an official of the
In Case T-5/93 : Roger Tremblay, of Vernantes ( France ),              European Parliament, residing at Howald (Luxembourg),
Francois Lucazeau, of La Rochelle (France ), Harry                     represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
Kestenberg,         of     Saint-Andre-les-Vergers      ( France ),    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and                  of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v. European
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Parliament (Agents : J. Campinos and D. Petersheim,
the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon,             subsequently E. Perillo and D. Petersheim) — application
supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs              for the annulment of the decision of the European
( SELL), whose head office is in Paris, represented by                 Parliament of 16 June 1992 appointing Mrs X temporarily
Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and Brussels Bars, with             to the post of Language Adviser in the Danish Translation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Division — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 3 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/ 11
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and D. P. M.                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Barrington and K. Lenaerts, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has                                 of 6 February 1995
given a judgment on 2 February 1995, in which it:                    in Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête and Others v.
                                                                                European Investment Bank ( x )
1 . annuls the decision of the President of the European                                      (Taxation of costs)
     Parliament of 16 June 1992 appointing Mrs X                                                  ( 95/C 74/21 )
     temporarily to the post of Language Adviser in the
     Danish Translation Division (Directorate-General for
     Translation and General Services);                                              (Language of the case: French)
2. orders the defendant to pay the costs.                            In Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête, residing at
                                                                     Caluire-et-Cuire ( France ), Jean-Pierre Raffin, residing at
                                                                     Paris, Felix Masola, residing at Villeurbanne ( France ),
0 ) OJ No C 34, 6 . 2 . 1993 .                                       Louis-Max Duplessy, residing at Villeurbanne,
                                                                     Marie-Louise Guigen, residing at Villeurbanne, Henri
                                                                     Chavaleyre, residing at Villeurbanne, Francois Meillasson,
                                                                     residing at Villeurbanne, Jean Margerand, residing at
                                                                     Villeurbanne, Jean-Claude                Pagand, residing   at
                                                                     Villeurbanne, Henri Alloix, residing at Villeurbanne,
                                                                     Groupe des Elus Verts au Conseil Regional, established at
                                                                     Charbonnières-les-Bains ( France ), Collectif Auto-stop,
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             established at Lyon ( France ), Association Sauvegarde de
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              l'Ouest Lyonnais, established at Caluire-et-Cuire,
                                                                     represented by Jean-Marc Bazy, of the Lyon Bar, with an
                      of 23 January 1995                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
in Case T-84/94 : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV              Monique Wirion, 1 Place du Theatre v. European
      v. Commission of the European Communities ( J )                Investment Bank (Agents : L. La Marca and C. Turk ) —
                          (Admissibility)                            application for the taxation of costs following the order of
                                                                     the Court of First Instance of 26 November 1993 in Case
                           ( 95/C 74/20                              T-460/93 Tête and Others v. European Investment Bank —
                                                                     the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
                                                                     Composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, A.
              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     Saggio, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili,
                                                                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 February
In Case T-84/94 : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV,              1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
established in Bonn ( Germany), represented by Joachim
Müller, Rechtsanwalt of Munich, with an address for                  the total amount ofthe costs recoverable by the defendant in
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean Wagener                 Case T-460/93 is set at Bfr 220 000.
and Alain Rukavina, 10A Boulevard de la Foire, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : M. J.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 339 , 22 . 12 . 1992 .
Jonczy and N. Lorenz ) — application for the annulment of
the Commission's decision of 4 November 1993 rejecting
the applicant's complaint seeking a declaration that the
German legislation on tax advisors infringes Articles 59 and
86 of the EC Treaty and that, by failing to take the necessary
applications in order to comply with the EC Treaty, the
Federal Republic of Germany has infringed Articles 5 and 90
of the EC Treaty — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth              Action brought on 19 January 1995 by Cantine dei Colli
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.                    Berici Cooperative A.R.L. against the Commission of the
Schintgen and R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,                                      European Communities
Registrar, made an order on 23 January 1995 , the operative                                      ( Case T-6/95 )
part of which is as follows :                                                                      ( 95/C 74/22 )
1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
2 . the applicant shall pay the costs.                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 January 1995
0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994.                                     by the Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop . A.R.L. , represented by
                                                                     Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 5 1
                                                                     Rue Albert I.


title: Case F-128/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 3 June 2015 — Bedin v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary action — Respective roles and powers of the Disciplinary Board and the Appointing Authority — Assessment of whether the facts complained of are established)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 3 June 2015 — Bedin v Commission
   (Case F-128/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary action - Respective roles and powers of the Disciplinary Board and the Appointing Authority - Assessment of whether the facts complained of are established))
   (2015/C 228/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luc Bedin (Watermael-Bisfort, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C.Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision to impose on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a 12-month period.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bedin to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p 51.


title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Irish Cement Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-60/95)

text:
No C 119/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
III. As regards the amount of the fine imposed, the                         6. Imposition of fines without prior warning.
      applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 15 of
      Regulation No 17, alleging that there was a mistake               II. Improper application of Article 85 of the EC Treaty
      both in determining the duration of the matters alleged               through lack of evidence and erroneous assessment of
      and the assessment of the seriousness of its alleged                  the applicable legal concepts, as regards:
      participation; and secondly, breach of the principle of
      fairness .                                                            1 . The analysis of the relevant market;
                                                                            2. The Cembureau Agreement;
                                                                            3 . The agreements concerning the exchange of
                                                                                information on prices;
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Agrupaciôn de
Fabricantes de Cemento de Espana 'Oficemen' against the                     4. The concerted practices concerning the exchange of
         Commission of the European Communities                                 information on prices;
                          (Case T-59/95 )
                                                                            5 . The Spain-Portugal Agreement;
                           ( 95/C 119/44)
                                                                            6 . The agreement concerning the European Task
                  (Language of the case: Spartish)                              Force;
An action against the Commission of the European                            7. The agreement concerning Interciment;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 23 February 1995 by Agrupaciôn de                               8 . The concerted practices ^s regards Calcestruzzi;
Fabricantes de Espana ('Oficemen'), represented by Jaime                    9 . The concerted practices as regards ECEC.
Folguera Crespo and Ramon Vidal Puig, of the Madrid Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              III. Infringement of Article 15 (2 ) of Regulation No 17 on
of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                                     the following grounds:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 1 . Inadmissibility of imposing general penalties;
— annul           Commission       Decision     94/815/EC        of         2 . Erroneous assessment of the duration of the
    30 November 1984,                                                           infringements;
— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 , 2, 3 (2 ), 4 ( 1 ), 4 (2 ),        3 . Erroneous assessment of the gravity of the
    4 ( 3 ) (a ), 5 and 9 of the aforementioned Decision, in so                 infringements;
    far as those Articles refer to Oficemen,
                                                                            4. Breach of the principle 'non bis in idem'.
— as a subsidiary plea, annul the fine imposed on Oficemen
    in Article 9 of the Decision or reduce the amount of the           IV. Misapplication of Article 1 ( 1 ) ( b) of Regulation (EEC)
    same ,                                                                  No 2988/74: the alleged offences are time-barred.
— order the Commission to pay the costs, expressly
    including the expenses of lodging and maintaining the
    security for the fine.
                                                                       Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Irish Cement Ltd
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant relies upon the following grounds in support                                   (Case T-60/95 )
of its claims :                                                                               ( 95/C 119/45 )
  I. Breach of essential procedural requirements:                                     (Language of the case: English)
      1 . Incomplete notification of the Statement of
            Objections, limited access to the file and exclusion       An action against the Commission of the European
            from the hearings;                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
      2. Inadequate access to the file;                                1995 by Irish Cement Ltd, represented by Mr. John D.
                                                                       Cooke and Mr John Glackin with and address for service in
      3 . Absence of a statement of reasons for the                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Etude Faltz & associés, 6,
            'abandonment' of national objections;                      rue Heinrich Heine, L-1720 Luxembourg.
      4. Failure to consult the Advisory Committee;                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      5 . Inconsistency between the objections and the                 — declare under Article 174 that the Commission's
            Decision;                                                      Decision of 30 November 1994 is void,
 ---pagebreak---  13 . 5 . 95          EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/23
— cancel pursuant to Article 172 and Article 17 of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Regulation No 17/62 or, in the alternative, reduce the
     fine imposed upon the applicant, and .                        — annul or modify the Commission Decision of
                                                                         30 November 1994 ( : ) at least in so far as regards Titan,
— award the applicant costs against the respondent.                      in particular by annulling or reducing the fine imposed
                                                                         upon it,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   — in any event, order the Commission to pay Titan's costs,
Procedural irregularity:                                                 and
It is submitted that the Decision should be declared void
                                                                   — take such other or further steps as justice may
upon the following grounds of procedural irregularity on                 require.
the part of the Commission:
— witholding of Statement of Objections,                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— failure to deal with reply to Statement of Objections .          The applicant alleges that the Decision is defective owing to
                                                                   infringements of essential procedural requirements and
Substantive grounds:                                               infringements of rules of law relating to the application of
                                                                   the EC Treaty, for the following reasons:
It is submitted that the Decision infringed Articles 190 and
85 of the Treaty and was so manifestly mistaken and                  I. Adequate notice and access to the file:
unfounded as to constitute a misuse of the powers of the
Commission .
                                                                           1 . Failure to give adequate notice of the case against
                                                                               the applicant, in that the Statement of Objections
The Decision was without reasoned foundation; was
                                                                               did not sufficiently particularize how the applicant
manifestly perverse in its assessment of such evidence as the                  was supposed to have participated in the alleged
Commission had before it and was arbitrary and
                                                                               agreement.
unreasonable in disregarding or misrepresenting evidence
adduced on behalf of the applicant.
                                                                           2. Failure to give the applicant access to the entirety of
                                                                               the Commission's file .
The Decision relied entirely upon a principle of 'guilt
by association' and failed completely or at least
disproportionately to attempt to assess the specific situation      II .   Evidence
of individual undertakings.
                                                                           1 . Disregard of the economic and commercial
The Decision failed to make any reasonable attempt to                          evidence, failure to take proper account of the
distinguish the actual responsibility of individual                            evidence offered by the applicant in its defense and
undertakings for involvement in the alleged agreements,                        failure to provide adequate evidence that in either
practices and infringing act.                                                  intentionally or negligently infringed Article 85 ( 1 )
                                                                               of the EC Treaty.
The applicant also submits that the fine should be cancelled
or reduced .
                                                                           2.  Erroneous assessment of evidence in that the
                                                                               Decision contains a number of inconsistencies and
                                                                               discrepancies.
                                                                   III. Reasoning
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Titan Cement
Company CA against the Commission of the European                          1 . Failure to provide adequate reason to explain why
                         Communities                                           the target of an alleged conspiracy should be
                       (Case T-64/95 )                                         punished by a severe fine in the same way as the
                                                                               alleged initiators of such a conspiracy and,
                        ( 95/C 119/46 )
                                                                               correspondingly, breach of the principles of natural
                                                                               justice, proportionality and equal treatment.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2. Error of substantive law, by determining the
An action against the Commission of the European                               existence of an infringement on the basis of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                              applicant's membership of an association which
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February                            was a member of Cembureau, and, in particular, by
1995 by Titan Cement Company CA, represented by Ian S.                         asserting that the applicant bore responsibility for
Forrester QC and Aristotelis N. Kaplanidis, with an address                    the European Task Force 'within the framework of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Tom                        Cembureau', when this task force was etablished
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, 1011 Luxembourg.                                        with the purpose of harassing Greek producers .


title: Case C-280/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Ralph Eßer v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Ralph Eßer v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-280/17)
   (2017/C 239/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ralph Eßer

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 1998 in Case C-81/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): Burgemeester en wethouders van Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland (Council Directive 85/337/EEC - New consent for a zoning plan)

text:
C 278/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.9.98
added tax on means of transport which constitute the very            5.7.1985, p. 40) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
tool of their trade, the French Republic has failed to fulfil        of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F.
its obligations under the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/            Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and K. M.
EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of               Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-
the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common                General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment               Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1998, in which
(OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1), and in particular Article 17(2)         it has ruled:
thereof Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R.
Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the
President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G.              Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur),                    assessment of the effects of certain public and private
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-                projects on the environment is to be interpreted as not
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              permitting Member States to waive the obligations
given a judgment on 18 June 1998, in which it:                       regarding environmental assessments in the case of
                                                                     projects listed in Annex I of the Directive where:
1. dismisses the application;                                        Ð the projects have already been the subject of a consent
                                                                          granted prior to 3 July 1988, the date by which the
                                                                          Directive was to have been transposed into national
2. order the Commission of the European Communities                       law,
     to pay the costs;
                                                                     Ð the consent was not preceded by an environmental
                                                                          assessment in accordance with the requirements of the
3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                          Directive and no use was made of it, and
     Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                     Ð a fresh consent procedure was formally initiated after
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
                                                                          3 July 1988.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 18 June 1998
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-81/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                     of 18 June 1998
the Nederlandse Raad van State): Burgemeester en wet-
houders van Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude and                       in Case C-266/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland (1)              the Tribunale di Genova): Corsica Ferries France SA v.
                                                                     Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop.
(Council Directive 85/337/EEC Ð New consent for a                    arl, Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia Coop.
                          zoning plan)                                     arl, Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione (1)
                         (98/C 278/03)                               (Freedom to provide services Ð Maritime transport Ð
                                                                     Undertakings holding exclusive rights Ð Mooring services
                                                                     for vessels in ports Ð Compliance with the competition
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                rules Ð Tariffs)
                                                                                (98/C 278/04)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-81/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                       published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State
(Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Burgemeester en                    In Case C-266/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
wethouders van Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude and                    of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Genova (District
Others and Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland Ð                   Court, Genoa) (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the
on the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of             proceedings pending before that court between Corsica
27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain             Ferries France SA and Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del
public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175,            Porto di Genova Coop. arl., Gruppo Ormeggiatori del


title: Case T-193/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AERONAUTICA — Earlier Community word marks NAUTICA and NAUTICA BLUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA)
   (Case T-193/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AERONAUTICA - Earlier Community word marks NAUTICA and NAUTICA BLUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cristiano di Thiene SpA (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: F. Fischetti and F. Celluprica, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nautica Apparel, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2014 (Case R 96/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Nautica Apparel, Inc. and Cristiano di Thiene SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cristiano di Thiene SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-186/02 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2002 against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.8.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 191/15
Under Article 55 of the directive, the Member States were               Pleas in law and main arguments
required to comply with that directive by 13 May 2000.
Although, in the meantime, the Federal Republic of Germany
has substantially transposed the directive into national law
by means of the Strahlenschutzverordnung (Ordinance on
protection from radiation) of 20 July 2001, there are still no          Misuse of powers, discrimination, absence of effect on compe-
provisions regulating activities carried out in connection with         tition between undertakings and absence of effect on intra-
the clean-up of left-over waste from earlier activities and             Community trade: Neither the Government of the Rioja in its
works, the closure and clean-up of uranium-ore extraction               complaint nor the European Commission in its contested
facilities and plants, and the construction and operation of            decision have been concerned with distortion of competition
radiological installations facilities and stray radiation equip-        since their action against Ramondı́n was motivated by other
ment under the Röntgenverordnung (Ordinance on protection               interests and the judgment makes an error of assessment of
against damage from ionising radiation).                                the conditions governing State aid. The appellants flatly deny
                                                                        the specific and selective nature of the contested aid claimed
                                                                        by the Commission and found in the judgment at first instance
(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.                                          on the basis that the regional Law in question possesses those
                                                                        characteristics, since it harms those taxable persons to whom
                                                                        it does not apply where they are not located within the relevant
                                                                        territorial jurisdiction of the authority which enacted the
                                                                        legislation but are based within the wider national territory
                                                                        Member State. That argument cannot be accepted, since towns
                                                                        or regions with legislative powers may act only within their
                                                                        own territories and within the limit of their powers, just like
Appeal brought on 17 May 2002 against the judgment                      genuine full Member States, so that State aid proceedings are
delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,                         inappropriate, the matter being one of tax harmonisation,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of                 which clearly falls outside the Commission’s powers.
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-92/00 and
T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio His-
tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others
       and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The Administración Foral (Regional Authority) had no dis-
                                                                        cretion either to include or exclude Ramondı́n from the
                        (Case C-186/02 P)                               legislation at issue, provided it fulfilled the relevant conditions.
                         (2002/C 191/26)
                                                                        In the alternative: if the Court should find that the measures at
                                                                        issue were selective, those measures are justified by the nature
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002                and structure of the scheme.
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-92/00 and T-103/00 between Territorio Histórico de Álava
— Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court of                Ramondı́n was discriminated against when proceedings were
Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2002 by                   brought against it specifically but not against the other
Ramondı́n SA and Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, represented by                 undertakings concerned by the same Alava regional legislation,
Javier Lazcano-Iturburu Ayestaran, abogado, Gran Vı́a 55,               or by similar legislation enacted by the other Basque auth-
Logroño (La Rioja), Spain.                                             orities, the Navarrese authorities by extension and by many
                                                                        other territorial authorities in various Community countries.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
                                                                        No competitor has complained about the grant of alleged State
2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of          aid, nor has it lodged a complaint with any institution or
      6 March 2002 and annul the decision of the European               body either formally or informally against the hypothetical
      Commission of 22 December 1999 in so far as it                    advantages granted, nor have any complaints by third parties
      declares incompatible with the common market the fiscal           been upheld.
      measures laid down in Normas Forales (regional Laws)
      No 22/94 and 24/96 applicable to the appellants, Ramon-
      dı́n SA y Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, and requires the Spanish
      State to recover them, and order the Commission to pay
      the costs of the proceedings.