title: Action brought on 4 February 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-45/97)

text:
No C 94/ 12           ran                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 3 February 1997 by the Commission of                        Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1992
     the European Communities against the Italian Republic                    of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                          (Case C-43/97)                                      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
                                                                              respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (*) as regards
                            ( 97/C 94/23 )                                    consumption aid for olive oil, and
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 February 1997 by the Commission of the European                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service             — Infringement of the rules concerning the financing of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the common agricultural policy and of the rules
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     governing the common organization of the market in
                                                                              the oils and fats sector: the Kingdom of Spain states,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   with regard to each of the undertakings in respect of
                                                                              which the Commission proposes financial corrections,
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                    the reasons for which it considers that the Commission
       the laws, regulations or administrative provisions                     committed an error when assessing compliance with
       necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC                   the Community rules by the undertakings concerned.
       of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the
       award of public supply contracts ( ! ), or in any event           — Breach of the principle of proportionality: in the case
       by failing to notify said provisions to the Commission,                of the two undertakings from which the EAGGF
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations              requires withdrawal of authorization for entitlement to
       under Article 34 ( 1 ) of that Directive;                             consumption aid, the amount cannot be regarded as
                                                                              significant, nor does there exist any intention to
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                              defraud .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           Also the application of a correction of 100% of the
                                                                              aid in the case of four of the undertakings
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                              investigated, and of 10% in the case of the nine
Directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                              others, does not correspond to any established
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                             criterion and is consequently out of all proportion to
Member States are required to observe the time limits laid
                                                                             the possible infringement committed.
down in directives for their transposition. That time limit
expired on 14 June 1994 without the Italian Republic
                                                                         (') OJ No L 323 , 13 . 12 . 1996 , p. 26 .
having brought into force the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Commission's application.
( 1 ) OJNoL 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Richmond
                                                                         Magistrates Court by order of that court of 3 September
                                                                         1996 in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against 1 . E.
                                                                             Clarke & Sons ( Coaches ) Limited and 2. D. J. Feme
Action brought on 4 February 1997 by the Kingdom                                                   ( Case C-47/97 )
of Spain against the Commission of the European                                                      ( 97/C 94/25 )
                            Communities
                          ( Case C-45/97)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            ( 97/C 94/24 )                               European Communities by an order of the Richmond
                                                                         Magistrates Court, of 3 September 1996, which was
An action against the Commission of the European                         received at the Court Registry on 6 February 1997, for a
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                   preliminary ruling in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate
the European Communities on 4 February 1997 by the                       against 1 . E. Clarke & Sons ( Coaches ) Limited and 2 . D. J.
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de La                    Feme, on the following questions:
puerta, Abogado del Estado and Head of the Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                 1 . Are groups of passengers carried on a single journey
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4—6 boulevard E.                           between an airport and a hotel via, on occasions, a
Servais .                                                                    tourist attraction 'specified categories of passengers'
                                                                              for the purposes of the application of Article 2 ( 1 ) ( 2 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   of Council Regulation 684/92/EEC H ?
— annul          Commission          Decision    96/701 /EC     of       2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is Article 2 ( 1 ) ( 2 )
       20 November 1996 amending Decision 96/311 /EC                         to be construed so that the carriage of such passengers
       on the clearance of the accounts presented by the                      on that journey where :


title: Action brought on 5 June 1997 by Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. against the Council of the European Union (Case T-171/97)

text:
 16 . 8 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/33
Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and                1 . Infringement of Article 190 of EC Treaty
designs ), resident in Campello, Alicante ( Spain ),
represented by Roland Assa, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's                     The applicant claims that the Council has not fulfilled
Chambers, 1 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against Office for                 its obligations under Article 190 as interpreted by the
the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks                    case-law of the Court of First Instance and the Court
and designs ) (Agents: Oreste Montalto and Joao Paulo                    of Justice since, in the statement of reasons of
Miranda de Sousa ) — application for suspension of the                   the contested regulation, particularly where it deals
operation of Decision ADM-97-3 of 21 February 1997 of                    with the issue of injury, it gives an unclear and
the President of the Office for the Harmonization of the                 contradictory exposition of the facts on the basis
Internal Market relating to the organization of the Boards               of which it established the applicant's average
of Appeal — the President of the Court of First Instance                 underselling margin ( 17% ), the percentage which was
made an order on 19 June 1997, the operative part of                     used precisely to set the rate of duty applicable to it.
which is as follows :
                                                                     2 . Infringement of the essential procedural requirement
1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.                   set out in Article 20 (4 ) of the basic anti-dumping
                                                                         regulation
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                         The applicant claims that there have been two
                                                                         infringements of Article 20 (4 ): the first consists of
                                                                         improper notification of the disclosure laid down by
                                                                         that article and the second lies in the content of the
                                                                         disclosure document:
Action brought on 5 June 1997 by Swedish Match
Philippines, Inc. against the Council of the European                    — the applicant states, as far as the first point is
                               Union                                         concerned, that the Commission did not send the
                        ( Case T-171 /97
                                                                             disclosure document to its representative in the
                                                                             anti-dumping proceeding, thereby preventing it
                          ( 97/C 252/73 )                                    from responding through its representative to the
                                                                             content of that document within the time limit set
                                                                             by the Commission. It considers, therefore, that
                 (Language of the case: English)                             this constituted a breach of its right to a fair
                                                                             hearing, implicitly enshrined in Article 20 ( 4 ),
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               — with regard to the second question, the applicant
Communities on 5 June 1997 by Swedish Match                                  argues that no trace of how the injury margin was
Philippines Inc ., represented by Angel Adell de Bernando                    assessed by the Commission can be found in the
and Francisco Miguel Rodero Lopez, with an address for                       disclosure document. Accordingly, it cannot tell on
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers Dupong &                               the basis of which date the underselling margin
Associes, 14a Rue des Bains, Luxembourg.                                     found in regard to it was calculated and therefore
                                                                             is unable to defend itself on the substance of the
                                                                             injury findings. It adds that, in its regulation, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Council increased the rate proposed by the
                                                                             Commission without giving any explanation of its
                                                                             decision to do so, which also constitutes an
— declare that Article 2 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Council Regulation
                                                                             infringement of the abovementioned article .
      ( EC ) No 423/97 of 3 March 1997 is void in so far as
      it affects Swedish Match Philippines, Inc., the
      condition 'in so far as it affects' being interpreted as
                                                                     3 . Infringement of Articles 1 ( 1 ), 3 ( 2 ) and 3 ( 6 ) of the
      comprising the suspension for the applicant of the                 basic anti-dumping regulation
      application of the residual duty set out in such article
      concerning imports of disposable flint lighters from
      the Philippines,                                                   The applicant maintains, on the one hand, that the
                                                                         exports which it made during the investigation period
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  to the Community market could not have given rise to
                                                                         any injury to the Community industry, since extremely
                                                                         limited quantities were exported and, on the other
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      hand, there is no causal link between its exports and
                                                                         the injury caused to the Community industry by
                                                                         imports made by other exporters .
The applicant submits that the contested regulation is void
in so far as it affects Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. on
the following grounds:


title: Case T-31/11: Action brought on 20 January 2011 — Fraas v OHIM (tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey colours)

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/32

         Action brought on 20 January 2011 — Fraas v OHIM (tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey colours)
   (Case T-31/11)
   2011/C 72/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2010 in Case R 1284/2010-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, which shows a tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey colours, for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the trade mark concerned is distinctive, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because the Board of Appeal failed to deal with the applicant’s extensive factual and legal submissions.

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 1998 in Case C-389/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Aher-Waggon GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany (Measures having equivalent effect - Directives on noise emissions from aircraft - Stricter domestic limits - Barrier to the importation of an aircraft - Environmental protection)

text:
26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/5
     measures such as designs, symbols or pictograms. The                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     placing in the shop of a supplementary sign adjacent
     to the product in question is not sufficient to ensure                                  (Fifth Chamber)
     that the ultimate consumer is informed and protected.
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
(1) OJ C 26, 25.1.1997.                                              in Case C-125/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(2) OJ L 33, 8.12.1979, p. 1.                                        the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Alkmaar): A. G. R.
                                                                     Regeling v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de
                                                                                Metaalnijverheid (1)
                                                                     (Social policy Ð Directive 80/987/EEC Ð Guarantee
                                                                         institutions' obligation to pay Ð Outstanding claims)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           (98/C 299/08)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 14 July 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case C-389/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Aher-Waggon GmbH v.
               Federal Republic of Germany (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect Ð Directives on noise
emissions from aircraft Ð Stricter domestic limits Ð                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Barrier to the importation of an aircraft Ð Environmental                       published in the European Court Reports)
                           protection)
                         (98/C 299/07)
                                                                     In Case C-125/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
               (Language of the case: German)                        of the EC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te
                                                                     Alkmaar (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between A. G. R.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Regeling and Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Metaalnijverheid, on the interpretation of Article 4 of
                                                                     Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
In Case C-389/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           to the protection of employees in the event of the
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht                   insolvency of their employer (2) Ð the Court (Fifth
(Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in           Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
the proceedings pending before that court between Aher-              Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.-
Waggon GmbH and the Federal Republic of Germany, on                  P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; Advocate General: G.
the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty Ð the              Cosmas; Administrator, L. Hewlett, for the Registrar, has
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      given a judgment on 14 July 1998, the operative part of
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.            which is as follows.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G.
Cosmas, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 July 1998, in which it has ruled:                                 On a proper construction of Article 4(2) of Council
                                                                     Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude national               to the protection of employees in the event of the
legislation which makes the first registration in national           insolvency of their employer, where a worker has,
territory of aircraft previously registered in another               simultaneously, claims against his employer in respect of
Member State conditional upon compliance with stricter               periods of employment before the reference period laid
noise standards than those laid down by Council Directive            down in that provision and claims relating to the reference
80/51/EEC of 20 December 1979 on the limitation of                   period itself, payments of wages made by the employer
noise emissions from subsonic aircraft, as amended by                during the latter period must be set in priority against
Council Directive 83/206/EEC of 21 April 1983, while                 earlier claims.
exempting from those standards aircraft which obtained
registration in national territory before that Directive was
implemented.                                                         (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 283, 20.10.1980, p. 23.
(1) OJ C 26, 8.2.1997.


title: Case C-212/07 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2007 by Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Ld a against the judgment delivered on 15 February 2007 in Case T-204/04 Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/12

         Appeal brought on 23 April 2007 by Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda against the judgment delivered on 15 February 2007 in Case T-204/04 Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-212/07 P)
   (2007/C 155/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda (represented by: T. Wallentin, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2007 in Case T-204/04 (1);

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant argues four grounds in support of its appeal against the above judgment of the Court of First Instance.
   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant relies on infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. Contrary to the observations of the Court, the term HAIRTRANSFER is capable of registration since its fanciful nature gives it distinctive character and is therefore capable of distinguishing the goods and services of the appellant from those of other undertakings.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant relies on infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. By its finding that the sign HAIRTRANSFER in respect of the goods applied for in Class 8 has a sufficiently direct and genuine link to the goods concerned and that the sign HAIRTRANSFER indicates the intended purpose of the goods in Class 22 to the relevant public, and therefore in its entirety also shows a sufficiently direct and genuine link to the goods concerned in Class 22, the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the provision at issue. In addition, HAIRTRANSFER cannot be descriptive in respect of the rejected goods per se, since an ‘exclusively descriptive’ function of goods is not appropriate for services (!)
   By its third ground of appeal, the appellant relies on breach of the principle of equal treatment. Signs which are definitely similar to the set of words at issue have been the subject of decisions of OHIM on the registration of Community trade marks. The appellant stated in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance that the sign in the present case has distinctive character also on account of the settled practice of OHIM, the Austrian Patent Office and the Patent Offices of numerous Member States.
   Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant relies on breach of general principles of EC law. The judgement of the Court of First Instance under appeal infringes the requirement of objectivity and the principle of coherence in decision-making, inasmuch as within one and the same application for a Community trade mark registration a distinction is made which cannot be objectively applied. It is quite evident that ‘hair thickening’ in Class 44 and rejected by the Office is included in hair lengthening. Registration of the sign HAIRTRANSFER in respect of ‘hair lengthening’ and rejection in respect of ‘hair thickening’ is therefore objectively unjustified.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 14.4.2007, p. 32.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 July 1996 in Case T-98/96 R: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Decision providing for reassignment to a post - Suspension of operation)

text:
No C 247/ 16          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              European Communities in Luxembourg be maintained for
                        of 11 July 1996                               the time being — the President of the Court of First Instance
                                                                      made an order on 5 July 1 996 , the operative part of which is
in Case T-30/96 : Jose Gomes de Sa Pereira v. Council of the          as follows :
                      European Union (')
(Council decisions appointing the chairmen and members of             1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
the Boards ofAppeal ofthe Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market (trade marks and designs) — Action for                2.  the costs are reserved.
    annulment — Action for damages — Inadmissible)
                          ( 96/C 247/34 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
In Case T-30/96 : Jose Gomes de Sa Pereira , residing at Sao                   OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Joao de Ver, Santa Maria da Feira ( Portugal ), represented by                               of 12 July 1996
Augusto Cardoso, of the Oporto Bar, 1 6 Rua Jornal Correio
da Feira , 1° Dt°, Santa Maria da Feira , v. Council of the           in Case T-93/96 R: Catherine Presle v. European Centre for
European Union ( Agents : Therese Blanchet and Isabel                            the Development of Vocational Training
Lopes Cardoso ) — application , first, for annulment of the                                    ( 96/C 247/36 )
decisions of the Council of 23 October 1 995 appointing the
chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal of the Office                           (Language of the case: German)
for Harmonization in the Internal Market ( trade marks and
designs ) ( OJ No C 314 , pp . 3 , 4 and 5 ) and, second, for an      In Case T-93/96 R : Catherine Presle , an official of the
order requiring the Council to pay compensation for the               European Centre for the Development of Vocational
damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of             Training, residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
those decisions — the Court of First Instance (Third                  Rechtsanwalt,     1 3 Place des Barricades, Brussels, v.
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, President, and B.                 European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, made         Training,      represented     by Bertrand Wagenbaur,
an order on 11 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as          Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg — application , first, for
follows :
                                                                      suspension of operation of the defendant's decision relating
                                                                      to the transfer of the applicant to Thessaloniki and , second ,
1 . the application for free legal assistance is dismissed;           for an order that her posting in the Berlin branch of the
                                                                      European Parliament's Information Office for Germany be
2 . the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;               maintained for the time being — the President of the Court
                                                                      of First Instance made an order on 12 July 19 96 , the
3 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                  operative part of which is as follows:
(•) OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                     1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                      2.  the costs are reserved.
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                         of 5 July 1996                                        OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-85 /96 R: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre
                                                                                of 25 July 1996
        for the Development of Vocational Training
                                                                      in Case T-98/96 R: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
                          ( 96/ C 247/35 )
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                       (Officials — Decision providing for reassignment to a post
                (Language of the case: German)                                         — Suspension of operation)
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/37 )
In Case T-85/96 R : Francis Alan Clarke , an official of the
European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Training, residing at Eischen ( Luxembourg ), represented by                          (Language of the case: French)
Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, 13 Place des Barricades,
Brussels, v. European Centre for the Development of                   In Case T-98/96 R : Mario Costacurta , an official of the
Vocational Training, represented by Bertrand Wagenbaur,               Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg — application, first, for                       Kinshasa , represented by Nicolas Decker, of the
suspension of operation of the defendant's decision relating          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
to the transfer of the applicant to Thessaloniki and , second ,       Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers , v. Commission of the
for an order that his posting in the Statistical Office of the        European Communities ( Agents: G. Valsesia and A. M.
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 8 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 247/ 17
Alves Vieira ) — application for suspension of operation of              the light of candidates' qualifications, the examiners
the decision of the Commission of the European                           appointed were underqualified and that the objectivity of
Communities of 31 May 1996 reassigning the applicant to                  the competition had not been respected .
the Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities in Luxembourg — the President of the Court                   According to the applicant, there had never been any
of First Instance made an order on 25 July 1996 , the                    objective review of the marking of his written test papers ( c )
operative part of which is as follows :                                  and ( d ) and the Commission had improperly accepted the
                                                                         marking of the Austrian examiners .
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
2.   the costs are reserved.
                                                                         In any event, the applicant submits, there was a breach of
                                                                         Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations to the
                                                                         detriment of all test participants , since the selection board
                                                                         for an 'accession competition ' had had recourse to national
                                                                         examiners serving, in fact, in a determinant capacity .
Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Martin Hagleitner                      On the basis of this procedural breach , the interests of all
    against Commission of the European Communities                       those taking part in the tests had been adversely affected , in
                                                                         view of the fact that there had been no objective and legally
                            ( Case T-94/96 )                             correct test procedure . Furthermore, it was very doubtful
                              ( 96/C 247/38 )                            whether anonymity had been respected , given the
                                                                         composition of the candidates successful in the written tests
                 (Language of the case: German)                          and of the examiners .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
Martin Hagleitner, Vienna, represented by Harald Svoboda ,
Rechtsanwalt, Vienna , with an address for service in
                                                                         Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Gestevision Telecinco
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, of Bonn &
Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                           SA against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-95 /96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                        ( 96/C 247/39 )
— order the Commission to prove that the examiners were                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
    qualified , that the competition procedure was
     anonymous and that the marking was objective ,
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
— arrange for the marking of the applicant's written test                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    papers ( c ) and ( d ) to be checked by qualified persons            Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
     ( DG IV, Legal Service, DG I ),                                     Gestevision Telecinco SA , whose registered office is in
                                                                         Madrid , represented by Santiago Munoz Machado, of the
— set aside the measures taken in connection with                        Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    competition COM/A/904 , or at least set aside the                    with Carlos Amo Quinones , 2 Rue Gabriel Lippmann .
    decision of the selection board in that competition not to
     admit the applicant to the oral tests ,
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt any decision on the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          complaints made by the applicant against the Kingdom
                                                                             of Spain alleging
After being admitted to the written tests, the applicant took
part in competition COM/A/904 to establish a reserve list                    — on 2 March 1992 that the aid received by the
for administrators of Austrian nationality . By letter of                         autonomous television companies ( Empresa Pública
1 June 1995 , the Commission informed the applicant that,                         de Radio Televisión de Andalucía , Corporació
on the basis of the results of his written tests, he did not                      Catalana de Radio i Televisió, Radio Televisión
feature among the 150 best applicants and for that reason                         Madrid , Empresa Pública Radio Televisión
was not to be admitted to the oral tests . It appeared from the                   Valenciana , Radio y Televisión de Galicia and Euskal
composition of the individual results, as set out in the                          Irrati Telebista ) from their respective Autonomous
Commission 's letter, that tests ( c ) and ( d ), in comparison                   Communities was incompatible with Article 92 of
with tests ( a ) and ( b ), were in fact indicated as having each a               the P'C Treaty, and
maximum possible mark of 30 .
                                                                             — on 12 November 1993 that the aid granted by the
The applicant claims that the marking of the written tests                        Spanish State to the public entity RTVE was also
was carried out by Austrian Government officials, that, in                        contrary to the same provision of the Treaty,


title: Case C-624/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Brighton Collectibles, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-403/10 Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/15

         Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Brighton Collectibles, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-403/10 Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar
   (Case C-624/11 P)
   2012/C 133/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Brighton Collectibles, Inc. (represented by: J. Horn, avocat)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-403/10;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs and those of the appellant;

               —

               Order Felmar to bear its own costs if it intervenes in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to make a valid assessment of the evidence the appellant submitted to it and failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision with regard to the national laws relied upon, in particular, Irish and UK case-law relating to passing off. Consequently, the General Court infringed the provisions of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-373/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — French Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — On-the-spot controls — Coefficient density of livestock — Counting of animals)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/16

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — French Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-373/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - On-the-spot controls - Coefficient density of livestock - Counting of animals))
   (2017/C 104/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented initially by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, and subsequently by G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: D. Bianchi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 April 2015, France v Commission (T-259/13, not published, EU:T:2015:250);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/17

         Removal from the register of Case C-257/03 (1)

   (2005/C 19/35)

      (Language of the case: English)

   By order of 25 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-257/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 1997 in Case T-225/95 Fotini Chiou v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Internal competition for movement of officials from Category C to Category B - Decision of the selection board noting the failure of candidates in the oral test - Consistency between the complaint and the application - Principle of equal treatment for men and women - Principle of non-discrimination - Assessment of the selection board)

text:
7.2.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/19
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Chambers of Christian Kramer, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias
                    of 17 December 1997                             Hardt, against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
in Case T-217/95: Lucia Passera v. Commission of the                Fabrizio Minneci and, for the oral procedure, Gianluigi
                  European Communities (1)                          Valsesia) Ð application for annulment of the decision of
(Officials Ð Internal competition for advancement from              the selection board in internal competition COM/B/9/93
category C to category B Ð Decision of the selection                to award the applicant a mark in the oral test lower than
board failing candidates at the oral test Ð Scope of the            the minimum required and not to include her in the list of
obligation to state reasons Ð Assessment by the selection           successful candidates Ð the Court of First Instance
                            board)                                  (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                                                                    and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
                         (98/C 41/38)                               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    17 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
               (Language of the case: French)                       follows:
In Case T-217/95: Lucia Passera, an official of the                 1. The application is dismissed.
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Overijse (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of            2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v.               (1) OJ C 77, 16.3.1996.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð
application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
selection board in internal competition COM/B/9/93 not
to enter the applicant's name on the list of suitable
candidates and, second, for annulment of the notice of                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
that competition Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                    (Third Chamber)
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P.
                                                                                of 18 December 1997
Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December              in Case T-12/94: FreÂdeÂric Daffix v. Commission of the
1997, in which it:                                                                    European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Removal from post Ð Appeal Ð Case
1. dismisses the action;                                            referred back to the Court of First Instance Ð Truth of
                                                                    the facts Ð Burden of proof Ð Misuse of discretion Ð
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      Manifest error of assessment Ð Rights of the defence Ð
                                                                           Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.                                                                     (98/C 41/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-12/94: FreÂdeÂric Daffix, a former official of the
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities, residing in
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
                                                                    Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
                    of 17 December 1997                             Rue de Cessange v. Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Benoît
in Case T-225/95 Fotini Chiou v. Commission of the
                                                                    Cambier) Ð application for annulment of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                    Commission's decision of 18 March 1993 removing the
(Officials Ð Internal competition for movement of                   applicant from his post and, if necessary, the implied
officials from Category C to Category B Ð Decision of               rejection of his complaint Ð the Court of First Instance
the selection board noting the failure of candidates in the         (Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
oral test Ð Consistency between the complaint and the               C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
application Ð Principle of equal treatment for men and              for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 December 1997,
women Ð Principle of non-discrimination Ð Assessment                the operative part of which is as follows:
                    of the selection board)
                                                                    1. The application is dismissed.
                         (98/C 41/39)
                                                                    2. Each of the parties shall bear all the costs which it has
               (Language of the case: French)                           incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance and the Court of Justice.
In Case T-225/95: Fotini Chiou, official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 (1) OJ C 59, 26.2.1994.
Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the


title: Case T-563/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CM Capital Markets)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/63

         Action brought on 16 December 2008 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CM Capital Markets)
   (Case T-563/08)
   (2009/C 44/107)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: CM Capital Markets Holding, SA (Madrid, Spain), (represented by: T. Villate Consonni and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carbon Capital Markets Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2008 in Case R-015/2008-1, which would lead to the refusal of the contested mark in its entirety;

               —

               Uphold the applicant's claims, and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested and reject its claims.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS’ (Application No 4 480 208) for services in class 36.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national and Community figurative marks ‘CAPITAL MARKETS’ for services in class 36.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-589/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 21 November 2016 — Mario Alexander Filippi and Others

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 21 November 2016 — Mario Alexander Filippi and Others
   (Case C-589/16)
   (2017/C 038/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mario Alexander Filippi, Martin Manigatterer, Play For Me GmbH, ATG GmbH, Christian Vöcklinger, Gmalieva s.r.o., PBW GmbH, Felicitas GmbH, Celik KG, Christian Guzy, Martin Klein, Shopping Center Wels Einkaufszentrum GmbH, Game Zone Entertainment AG, Fortuna Advisory Kft., Finanzamt Linz, Klara Matyiko

      Defendants: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich, Bezirkshauptmann Eferding, Bezirkshauptmann Ried im Innkreis, Bezirkshauptmann Linz-Land

      Question referred

   Is Article 47 of the Charter (1) in conjunction with Article 56 et seq. TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in cases in which it is necessary to make an assessment of consistency, national provisions (such as Paragraph 86a(4) of the Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz (VfGG), Paragraph 38a(4) of the Verwaltungsgerichtsgesetz (VwGG), Paragraph 87(2) of the VfGG or Paragraph 63(1) of the VwGG) are incompatible with those provisions of EU law where — as part of an overall system which in practice has the effect that supreme courts do not carry out any autonomous assessment of the facts or weighing of evidence, and in numerous cases which are in the same position in terms of the question of law raised make only a single decision on the facts in one of those cases and on that basis dismiss all the other appeals in limine — they permit, or do not reliably exclude, that judicial (within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 47 of the Charter) decisions — in particular those made in relation to core areas of EU law, such as for example access to markets or free trade — can then be precluded by decisions of institutions of higher instance which for their part do not comply with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the ECHR or Article 47 of the Charter, without a prior reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling?

      (1)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2001 in Case T-139/01 R Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co. v Commission of the European Communities (Interim proceedings — Common organisation of the banana market — Allocation of import licences — Admissibility — Conditions for the grant of interim relief — Provisional nature of the relief sought)

text:
C 44/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                of 22 October 2001
                                                                            in Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria
                                                                              i Serveis v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Proceedings for interim relief — Fumus boni juris —
                                                                            Urgency — Withdrawal of Community financial assistance)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/31)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                      of 12 September 2001
                                                                            In Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria
                                                                            i Serveis, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by
in Case T-139/01 R Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit                       M.C. Belard-Kopke Marques-Pinto, lawyer, with an address for
Europe Ltd. & Co. v Commission of the European                              service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                            Communities                                     Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and S. Pardo Quintillán) —
                                                                            application for suspension of the operation of Commission
                                                                            Decision C(1999) 534 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing Com-
(Interim proceedings — Common organisation of the banana                    munity financial assistance — the President of the Court of
market — Allocation of import licences — Admissibility —                    First Instance made an order on 22 October 2001, the
Conditions for the grant of interim relief — Provisional                    operative part of which is as follows:
                    nature of the relief sought)
                                                                            1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                           (2002/C 44/30)                                   2.    Costs are reserved.
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-139/01 R: Comafrica SpA, having its registered                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
office in Genoa (Italy) and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co,                                           INSTANCE
having its registered office in Hamburg (Germany), represented
by Mr. B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and Mr. P.B.G. Martin, Barrister,                                    of 18 October 2001
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
X. Lewis and C. Van der Hauwaert) — application for                         in Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessaloni-
suspension of Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of                          kis v Commission of the European Communities
7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for
                                                                            (Interlocutory proceedings — EAGGF — Withdrawal of
importing bananas into the Community and Commission
                                                                                financial assistance — Urgency — None)
Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 of 7 June 2001 fixing the
adjustment coefficient to be applied to each traditional oper-
ator’s reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of                                       (2002/C 44/32)
bananas — the President of the Court of First Instance has
made an order on 12 September 2001, the operative part of                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
which is as follows:
                                                                            In Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis,
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                      represented by D. Nikopoulos, lawyer, v Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) —
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                   application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s
                                                                            decision C(2001) 1284 of 8 June 2001 withdrawing Com-
                                                                            munity financial assistance — the President of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance made an order on 18 October 2001, the
                                                                            operative part of which is as follows:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-66/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret): Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark and Others v. Fællesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeninger and Others (Equal treatment for men and women - Remuneration - Working conditions for a pregnant woman)

text:
23.1.1999           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/3
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                               3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the
                                                                       Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the
                      (Sixth Chamber)                                  European Communities to bear their own costs.
                   of 19 November 1998                            (1) OJ C 202, 23.7.1994.
in Case C-150/94: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland supported by Federal Republic of
Germany v. Council of the European Union, supported by
Kingdom of Spain and Commission of the European
                      Communities (1)
(Actions for annulment Ð Common commercial policy Ð                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Regulation (EC) No 519/94 Ð Import quotas for certain
         toys from the People's Republic of China)                                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                       (1999/C 20/03)
                                                                  in Case C-66/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                  from      the    Sù-    og    Handelsret):     Handels-      og
                                                                  Kontorfunktionñrernes Forbund i Danmark and Others
                                                                  v. Fñllesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeninger and
                                                                                Others (1)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  (Equal treatment for men and women Ð Remuneration Ð
                                                                           Working conditions for a pregnant woman)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/04)
In Case C-150/94: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins assisted by                             (Language of the case: Danish)
Christopher Vajda), supported by Federal Republic of
Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Gereon Thiele) v.
Council of the European Union (Agents: Bjarne
Hoff-Nielsen and Guus Houttuin), supported by Kingdom
of Spain (Agents: Alberto Navarro GonzaÂlez and Gloria              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Calvo Díaz) and by Commission of the European                              published in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Agents: Eric L. White and Patrick Hetsch)
Ð Application for annulment of Article 1(2) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on common
rules for imports from certain third countries and                In Case C-66/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1765/82, No 1766/82                of the EC Treaty from the Sù- og Handelsret (Maritime
and No 3420/83 (OJ L 67, 10.3.1994, p. 89), in so far as          and Commercial Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary
it applies to toys falling within HS/CN Codes 9503 41,            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
9503 49 and 9503 90 Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  between Handels- og Kontorfunktionñrernes Forbund i
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,          Danmark, acting on behalf of Berit Hùj Pedersen, and
G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; P.           Fñllesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeninger, acting on
LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                 behalf of Kvickly Skive, between Handels- og
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in           Kontorfunktionñrernes Forbund i Danmark, acting on
which it:                                                         behalf of Bettina Andresen, and Dansk Tandlñgeforening,
                                                                  acting on behalf of Jùrgen Bagner, between Handels- og
                                                                  Kontorfunktionñrernes Forbund i Danmark, acting on
                                                                  behalf of Tina Pedersen, and Dansk Tandlñgeforening,
                                                                  acting on behalf of Jùrgen Rasmussen, and between
                                                                  Kristelig Funktionñr-Organisation, acting on behalf of Pia
1. Dismisses the application;                                     Sùrensen, and Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf
                                                                  of Hvitfeldt Guld og Sùlv ApS Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                  Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Council Directive
                                                                  75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
                                                                  the laws of the Member States relating to the application
                                                                  of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ
                                                                  L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19), Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
    Northern Ireland to pay the costs;                            equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
employment, vocational training and promotion, and                       unfit for work, without paying her salary in full when
working conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40) and                       he considers that he cannot provide work for her.
Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
introduction of measures to encourage improvements in
the safety and health at work of pregnant workers                   (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
and workers who have recently given birth or are
breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ
L 348, 28.1.1992, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and
R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in                                     (First Chamber)
which it has ruled:
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                                                                    in Case C-252/96 P: European Parliament v. Enrique
                                                                                GutieÂrrez de Quijano y LloreÂns (1)
1. It is contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty and
    Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975                (Appeals Ð Proceedings before the Court of First Instance
    on the approximation of the laws of the Member                  Ð Prohibition of new pleas Ð Applicability to the Court
    States relating to the application of the principle of          of First Instance Ð Officials Ð Inter-institutional transfer)
    equal pay for men and women for national legislation
                                                                                (1999/C 20/05)
    to provide that a pregnant woman who, before the
    beginning of her maternity leave, is unfit for work by
    reason of a pathological condition connected with her
    pregnancy, as attested by a medical certificate, is not                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
    entitled to receive full pay from her employer but
    benefits paid by a local authority, when in the event of
    incapacity for work on grounds of illness, as attested
    by a medical certificate, a worker is in principle                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    entitled to receive full pay from his or her employer.                    published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-252/96 P: European Parliament (Agents:
2. It is not contrary to Article 119 of the Treaty or               Manfred Peter and JoseÂ Luis Rufas Quintana) Ð Appeal
    Directive 75/117/EEC for national legislation to                against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
    provide that a pregnant woman is not entitled to                European Communities (Second Chamber) of 22 May
    receive her pay from her employer where, before the             1996 in Case T-140/94 GutieÂrrez de Quijano y LloreÂns v.
    beginning of her maternity leave, she is absent from            Parliament [1996] ECR-SC II-689 seeking to have that
    work by reason either of routine pregnancy-related              judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
    inconveniences, when there is in fact no incapacity for         being: Enrique GutieÂrrez de Quijano y LloreÂns, official of
    work, or of medical recommendation intended to                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
    protect the unborn child but not based on an actual             residing in Luxembourg at 53 Rue de Beggen, represented
    pathological condition or on any special risks for the          by Sonia Sequero Marcos, of the MaÂlaga Bar, with an
    unborn child, while any worker who is unfit for work            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Enrique
    on the grounds of illness is in principle entitled              GutieÂrrez de Quijano Ð the Court (First Chamber),
    thereto.                                                        composed of: D. A. O. Edward, acting as President of the
                                                                    First Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,
                                                                    Advocate-General: P. LeÂger; Judges; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                    has given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in which it:
3. It is contrary to Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
    9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
    principle of equal treatment for men and women as
                                                                    1. Dismisses the appeal;
    regards access to employment, vocational training and
    promotion, and working conditions, and to Council
    Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
    introduction of measures to encourage improvements              2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.
    in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers
    and workers who have recently given birth or are
    breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the            (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
    meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) for
    national legislation to provide that an employer may
    send home a woman who is pregnant, although not


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2003 in Case C-97/01: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Telecommunications — Rights of way — Failure to transpose Directive 90/388/EEC effectively)

text:
C 184/4                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    That interpretation would be no different if the concepts of
                                                                                ‘recycling’ and ‘waste’ referred to by Council Directive 75/442/
                                                                                EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste were taken into account.
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2001.
                           of 19 June 2003
in Case C-444/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on
the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environ-                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ment Agency, Secretary of State for the Environment,
                  Transport and the Regions (1)                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
(Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC
and Decision 96/350/EC — Directive 94/62/EC — Concept
of waste — Concept of recycling — Processing of metal                        in Case C-97/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                           packaging waste)                                               nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Telecom-
                            (2003/C 184/06)                                  munications — Rights of way — Failure to transpose Direc-
                                                                                tive 90/388/EEC effectively)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                                      (2003/C 184/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
In Case C-444/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court), for a preliminary ruling              In Case C-97/01, Commission of the European Communities
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                     (Agents: S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier) v Grand Duchy of
Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd and                    Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz): Applications for a declaration
Environment Agency, Secretary of State for the Environment,                  that, by failing to ensure, in practice, the effective transposition
Transport and the Regions, interveners: Corus (UK) Ltd and                   into Luxembourg law of Article 4d of Commission Directive
Allied Steel and Wire Ltd (ASW), on the interpretation of                    90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ                    for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10), as
1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/                  amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March
EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Commission                    1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32),                    has failed to fulfil its obligations, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
and of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of                 composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ                        C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rappor-
1994 L 365, p. 10), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                  teur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans                     trar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                 1.    Declares that, by failing to ensure the effective transposition of
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 June                         Article 4d of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June
2003, in which it has ruled:                                                       1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications
                                                                                services, as amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of
                                                                                13 March 1996, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
1.    ‘Recycling’ within the meaning of Article 3(7) of European                   to fulfil its obligations;
      Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December
      1994 on packaging and packaging waste is to be interpreted as          2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      not including the reprocessing of metal packaging waste when it
      is transformed into a secondary raw material such as material
      meeting the specifications of Grade 3B, but as covering the            (1) OJ C 108, 7.4.2001.
      reprocessing of such waste when it is used to produce ingots,
      sheets or coils of steel.


title: Case C-206/07: Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-206/07)
   (2007/C 129/24)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignatero and M. Afonso, acting as 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 2004/33/EC (1) of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components or, in any event, by failing to communicate them 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 transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 8 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 91, p. 25.


title: Case C-59/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italy) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Pierfrancesco Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italy) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Pierfrancesco Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata
   (Case C-59/13)
   2013/C 147/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio Nazionale Forense

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pierfrancesco Torresi

      Defendant: Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the general principle which prohibits any abuse of rights and Article 4(2) TEU, relating to respect for national identities, is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (1) to be interpreted as obliging national administrative authorities to register in the register of lawyers qualifying abroad Italian nationals who have conducted themselves in a manner which abuses Union law, and as precluding a national practice which allows such authorities to reject applications for registration in the register of lawyers qualifying abroad where there are objective circumstances to indicate that there has been an abuse of Union law, without prejudice either to respect of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination or to the right of the person concerned to institute legal proceedings in order to argue a possible infringement of the right of establishment and, consequently, the possibility of judicial review of the administrative action in question?

               2.

               If the first question should be answered in the negative, is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC, thus interpreted, to be regarded as invalid in light of Article 4(2) TEU, in that it enables circumvention of the rules of a Member State which make access to the legal profession conditional on passing a State examination, given that the Constitution of that Member States makes provision for such an examination and that the examination forms part of the fundamental principles safeguarding consumers of legal services and the proper administration of justice?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.


title: Case F-30/12: Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/36

         Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-30/12)
   2012/C 138/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 of 13 April 2011 concerning the applicant;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-222/02: Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 233/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
Grounds of claim:              —      The trademark applied for            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                      satisfies   the      minimum
                                      requirements for a distinc-
                                      tive character (Article 7(1)(b)      In the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the
                                      of Regulation (EC) No 40/            jury’s decision of 31 July 2001 in competition COM/A/6/01
                                      94 (1)).                             in so far as the applicant was thereby refused admission to that
                                                                           competition on the ground that she exceeded the age limit set
                               —      The contested decision is            in the notice of competition.
                                      contrary to jurisprudence of
                                      the Court.
                                                                           In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-            —     that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).                                          in that, in her appeal, the applicant was not seeking a
                                                                                declaration that one of the conditions stipulated in the
                                                                                notice of competition, namely the condition regarding
                                                                                age, was illegal, but a declaration that the jury’s decision
                                                                                refusing her admission to the competition was illegal;
                                                                           —     infringement of the principle of equality, enshrined
                                                                                in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits all
                                                                                discrimination based on age;
Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera                        —     infringement of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental
   against the Commission of the European Communities                            Rights of the European Union and Article 14 of the
                                                                                European Convention on Human Rights.
                         (Case T-219/02)
                         (2002/C 233/53)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits
                                                                           GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                           (Case T-222/02)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera,                                          (2002/C 233/54)
residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón Garcia-Gallardo,
Gil Fournier and D. Javier Guillén Carra, lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the Commission’s decision refusing the applicant’s             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      application to take part in competition COM/A/6/01;                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits GmbH, of Lustenau
—     overturn the dismissal of the administrative appeal against          (Austria), represented by M. Bergermann, Lawyer.
      the refusal of the applicant’s application to take part in
      the said competition;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order such other relief as the Court may think appropriate           —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      so that the Commission fulfils its obligations under                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Article 233 EC and, specifically, conducts a fresh examin-                 Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2002 (Ref: R 1095-2000-
      ation of appeal No 486/01;                                                 1);
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/31
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark applied         the word mark ‘ROBOTUNITS’ —
for:                           Application No 1 176 320
                                                                          The action has been brought against the decision by which the
Goods or services con-         goods in Classes 6, 7 and 9                Commission withdrew the aid, initially granted by the Euro-
cerned:                        (including metal profiles, guides          pean Social Fund, for which the undertaking COPY ARAGON
                               for machines and conveyor belts)           S.A. had applied on 25 November 1991 for the purpose of
                                                                          running specialised courses in colour image processing by
Decision         contested     refusal of registration by the             computer systems, financed by the Community initiative
before the Board of            examiner                                   EUROFORM (TRICOIN Project). The decision was essentially
Appeal:                                                                   based on the fact that the project concerned was not transna-
                                                                          tional.
Decision of the Board of       dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of         In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:
                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)
                                                                          —     The Commission made errors of assessment concerning
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                the facts on which it based its decision, in so far as
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                                 regards both the description of the Chamber of Com-
                                                                                merce, Zaragoza, as the ultimate recipient of the aid
                                                                                granted and the allegation that the project did not have a
                                                                                sufficiently transnational dimension. It points out in that
                                                                                connection that the Community rules on the conditions
                                                                                and requirements for an transnational dimension in the
                                                                                framework of the programme for 1988 to 1993 were
                                                                                neither sufficiently specific nor sufficiently clear and that
Action brought on 29 July 2002 by the Cámara de                                 consequently it was impossible to ascertain precisely
Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza against the Commission                         which operations were transnational and which were not.
                of the European Communities
                                                                          —     If the international operations required by the Com-
                          (Case T-225/02)
                                                                                mission were not provided for either in the original
                                                                                application or in any subsequent alterations to the project
                         (2002/C 233/55)                                        and the project was approved in that form, there is
                                                                                no reason to impose such a requirement retroactively,
                                                                                inasmuch as to do so would amount to a breach of the
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                principle of legal certainty.
                                                                          —     The period which elapsed between presentation on
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                28 July 1999 of the UAFSE document containing the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                submissions made in response to the defendant’s notifi-
European Communities on 29 July 2002 by the Cámara de
                                                                                cation of 11 June 1999 of its proposal to instigate the
Comercio e Industria, Zaragoza, Spain, represented by Alfredo
                                                                                procedure for withdrawing the aid granted and the
Sánchez-Rubio Garcia, lawyer.                                                   contested decision of 29 December 2000, and the
                                                                                period which elapsed between the date on which the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission adopted the Decision and the date of its
                                                                                notification to the Chamber of Commerce, Zaragoza, on
                                                                                16 May 2002 exceed what should and can be regarded as
—     annul Commission Decision C(2000) 2621 of 29 Decem-                       reasonable in accordance with the principle of sound
      ber 2000 ‘relating to the withdrawal of aid which was
                                                                                administration.
      allocated to the European Social Fund (ESF) by the
      Commission on 19.12.1991 No C(91) 2852 via the
      Community initiative “EUROFORM” for Spain (P.O.                     —     Failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons.
      913051ES8) and which the Spanish authorities (UAFSE)
      likewise allocated by way of ESF funds to the Cámara de
      Comercio e Industria (Chamber of Commerce), Zaragoza,               —     The contested decision does not bear any signature
      for the “TRICOIN” project (ref.: EUR-82), for the                         establishing the document’s authenticity.
      implementation of which the company Copy Aragón de
      Zaragoza was responsible’;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-565/15: Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hans-Peter Ofenböck, in the presence of: Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hans-Peter Ofenböck, in the presence of: Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich
   (Case C-565/15) (1)

   (2016/C 260/46)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.