title: Case T-210/10: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Condé v Council

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/28

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Condé v Council
   (Case T-210/10) (1)

   2011/C 331/54
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-182/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom) made on 19 May 2009 — Seaport (NI) Limited v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom) made on 19 May 2009 — Seaport (NI) Limited v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland
   (Case C-182/09)
   2009/C 193/05
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Seaport (NI) Limited

      Defendant: Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

      Questions referred

               (1)

               What is the scope of the power given to Member States under Article 13(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (‘the SEA Directive’) to determine that it is not feasible to require an environmental assessment of a plan or programme for which the first formal preparatory act occurred before 21 July 2004 and the matters the national authorities may take into account, on a case by case basis, in reaching such a determination?

               (2)

               Whether it was open to the national authority of a Member State, having made a determination in 2004 that it was feasible for a plan to comply with the requirements of the SEA Directive [and having maintained that position thereafter and before the national court], to reconsider that decision and determine in November 2007 that it was not feasible for the said plan to comply with the SEA Directive?

               (3)

               Whether the determination process described in question 2 amounts to a retrospective determination of a non feasibility determination, and if so, does Article 13(3) of the SEA Directive permit such retrospective determinations, and if so, under what conditions?

               (4)

               Whether the factors taken into account by the national authority in the present case in determining on 6 November 2007 that it was not feasible to carry out an environmental assessment of the Draft North Area Plan were matters which it was entitled to take into account in making such a determination pursuant to Article 13(3) of the SEA Directive?

      (1)  OJ L 197, p. 30


title: Case C-59/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — Siemens AG v Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH (VIPA) (Approximation of laws — Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a distinguishing mark of a competitor)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/24

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — Siemens AG v Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH (VIPA)
   (Case C-59/05) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC - Comparative advertising - Taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a distinguishing mark of a competitor)
   (2006/C 131/43)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Siemens AG

      Defendant: VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH

      Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3a(1)(g) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as inserted by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — Comparative advertising — Products sold under reference to what are essentially the product order numbers of a competitor
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3a(1)(g) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, by using in its catalogues the core element of a manufacturer's distinguishing mark which is known in specialist circles, a competing supplier does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of that distinguishing mark.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-73/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Ahmed Ettaghi

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Ahmed Ettaghi
   (Case C-73/12)
   2012/C 118/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Revere

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   Ahmed Ettaghi

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

               2.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?

               3.

               Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case T-105/16: Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/17

         Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)
   (Case T-105/16)
   (2016/C 175/20)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Explosal Ltd (Larnaca, Cyprus)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel’ — EU trade mark No 10 008 084

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2016 in Case R 2775/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and either reject EUTM application no. 10008084 for all goods or, subsidiarily, send the case back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration of the prohibitions laid down by Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in light of the submitted evidence of repute and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own the costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2001 in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99: Michel Chamier and Eoghan O'Hannrachain v European Parliament (Officials — Grade A 1 post — Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers)

text:
5.5.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 134/17
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 January 2001
                       of 31 January 2001
                                                                         in Case T-14/99: Marie-Jeanne Kraus v Commission of the
in Case T-156/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the                                        European Communities (1)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue
                                                                               payment — Manifest irregularity of the payment)
(ECSC Treaty — Concentration between undertakings —
                    Admissibility — State aid)                                                     (2001/C 134/36)
                         (2001/C 134/35)                                                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-14/99: Marie-Jeanne Kraus, an official of the
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg, represented by L. Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers,
In Case T-156/98: RJB Mining plc, having its registered office           10 Rue Willy Goergen, v Commission of the European
at Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by M. Brealey,                  Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser, F. Clotuche-Duvieu-
Barrister, and J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service       sart and B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                   Commission’s decision of 19 October 1998 requiring the
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European               applicant to reimburse the household allowance received —
Communities (Agents: K. Leivo and R. Lyal) supported by RAG              the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Germany), represented          P. Mengozzi, President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos,
by M. Hansen, Denmark, and S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin,             Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             has given a judgment on 17 January 2001, in which it:
Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, and by Federal Republic
of Germany, (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski)                1.    Dismisses the action;
— application for annulment of the Commission decision of
29 July 1998 authorising the acquisition by RAG Aktienge-                2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
sellschaft of control of Saarbergwerke AG and Preussag
Anthrazit GmbH (Case No IV/ECSC.1252-RAG/Saarbergwerke                   (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
AG/Preussag Anthrazit) — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras
and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 31 January 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 29 July 1998 authorising
      the acquisition of control by RAG Aktiengesellschaft of                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Saarbergwerke AG and Preussag Anthrazit GmbH (Case
      No IV/ECSC.1252 — RAG/Saarbergwerke AG/Preussag                                           of 16 January 2001
      Anthrazit);
                                                                         in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99: Michel Chamier and
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the              Eoghan O’Hannrachain v European Parliament (1)
      costs incurred by the applicant other than costs occasioned to
      the applicant by the interventions of RAG Aktiengesellschaft       (Officials — Grade A 1 post — Article 29(2) of the Staff
      and the Federal Republic of Germany;                               Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Manifest error of
                                                                                assessment — Misuse of powers)
3.    Orders RAG Aktiengesellschaft and the Federal Republic of
      Germany to bear their own costs.                                                             (2001/C 134/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.98.
                                                                         In Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99: Michel Chamier, an
                                                                         official of the European Parliament, residing at Reckange-sur-
                                                                         Mess (Luxembourg), and Eoghan O’Hannrachain, an official of
                                                                         the European Parliament, residing at Cents (Luxembourg),
                                                                         represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels
 ---pagebreak--- C 134/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.5.2001
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices                    —    cultural activities; organisation and conducting of shows,
of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, v                           quizzes and musical events and conducting competitions
European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo, H. von Hertzen,                                in the entertainment field, with a view to their broadcast-
D. Moore and D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for                                 ing either at a subsequent time or live on radio or
annulment of the decisions of the Parliament not to appoint the                       television; production of television and radio advertising
applicants to the post of Director-General of the Directorate-                        broadcasts including associated prize game broadcasts;
General for Finance and Financial Control and of the decision                         organising competitions in the entertainment field; organ-
appointing another candidate to that post and, second, for                            ising concerts, theatre events and variety shows, all falling
damages — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                                under Class 41;
composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh
and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment                 —    management and exploitation of copyright and industrial
on 16 January 2001, in which it:                                                      property rights for others; technical consultancy in the
                                                                                field of multimedia, interactive television and Pay TV (in
1.    Dismisses the actions;                                                          so far as included in Class 42); computer programming,
                                                                                including video and computer games, all falling under
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                     Class 42;
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999 and OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.                       2.    Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;
                                                                           3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 31 January 2001
in Case T-135/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(Community trade mark — Term CINE ACTION — Absol-                                                  of 31 January 2001
ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                             No 40/94)                                     in Case T-136/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co v Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                          (2001/C 134/38)                                                          Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          (Community trade mark — Term CINE COMEDY —
                                                                           Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
In Case T-135/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co, established                                                  (EC) No 40/94)
in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by R. Schneider,
Rechtsanwalt, Bremen, with an address for service in Luxem-                                          (2001/C 134/39)
bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and S. Bonne) —                                      (Language of the case: German)
application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case                    In Case T-136/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co, established
R 98/98-3), concerning the registration of the term CINE                   in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by R. Schneider,
ACTION as a Community trade mark — the Court of First                      Rechtsanwalt, Bremen, with an address for service in Luxem-
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,             bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,                and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and S. Bonne) —
in which it:                                                               application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
                                                                           of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and            R 97/98-3), concerning the registration of the term CINE
      Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 98/98-3) in so far as it           COMEDY as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
      concerns the following services:                                     Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,
                                                                           A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
      —    allocation and transfer of rights of access for users of        for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,
           various communication networks, falling under Class 38;         in which it:


title: Case C-285/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against R. (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 28c(A)(a) — Evasion of VAT — Refusal to grant an exemption of VAT on intra-Community supplies of goods — Vendor’s active participation in the fraud — Powers of the Member States in connection with the prevention of potential tax evasion, avoidance and abuse)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against R.
   (Case C-285/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 28c(A)(a) - Evasion of VAT - Refusal to grant an exemption of VAT on intra-Community supplies of goods - Vendor’s active participation in the fraud - Powers of the Member States in connection with the prevention of potential tax evasion, avoidance and abuse)
   2011/C 55/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Party in the main criminal proceedings

   R.

      In the presence of: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof, Finanzamt Karlsruhe-Durlach

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended — Evasion of VAT — Refusal to grant an exemption of turnover tax on intra-Community supplies of goods — Vendor’s active participation in the fraud

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an intra-Community supply of goods has actually taken place, but when, at the time of that supply, the supplier concealed the identity of the true purchaser in order to enable the latter to evade payment of value added tax, the Member State of departure of the intra-Community supply may, pursuant to its powers under the first part of the sentence in Article 28c(A) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000, refuse to allow an exemption in respect of that transaction.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-390/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 July 2015 — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 July 2015 — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)
   (Case C-390/15)
   (2015/C 346/06)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Trybunał Konstytucyjny

      Applicant in the main proceedings

   Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Marszałek Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Prokurator Generalny

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system on value added tax (1), in the version amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax (2), invalid on the ground that, during the legislative procedure, the essential formal requirement of consultation with the European Parliament was not complied with?

               2.

               Is Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, referred to in Question 1, in conjunction with point 6 of Annex III to that directive, invalid on the ground that it infringes the principle of fiscal neutrality to the extent to which it excludes the application of reduced tax rates to books published in digital format and other electronic publications?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 116, p. 18.


title: Case T-74/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/28

         Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Al-Tabbaa v Council
   (Case T-74/13)
   2013/C 86/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant and in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the contested measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation, and to private and family life.


title: Case C-31/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV v Raad van de gemeente Appingedam

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV v Raad van de gemeente Appingedam
   (Case C-31/16)
   (2016/C 136/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV

      Defendant: Raad van de gemeente Appingedam

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the term ‘service’ in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Services Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that retail trade consisting of the sale of goods such as shoes and clothing to consumers is a service to which the provisions of the Services Directive apply under Article 2(1) of that Directive?

               2.

               The scheme as referred to under 8 seeks to make impossible certain forms of retail trade, such as the sale of shoes and clothing, in areas outside the city centre with a view to maintaining the viability of the city centre and preventing vacant premises in inner city areas. Does a rule relating to such a scheme, having regard to recital 9 of the Services Directive, fall outside the scope of the Services Directive, because such rules must be regarded as pertaining to ‘town and country planning … which do not specifically regulate or specifically affect the service activity but have to be respected by providers in the course of carrying out their economic activity in the same way as by individuals acting in their private capacity’?

               3.

               Is it sufficient in order to assume that a cross-border situation exists, that it cannot be excluded that a retail business from another Member State would be able to establish itself locally or that the customers of the retail business could be from another Member State, or should there be actual evidence thereof?

               4.

               Is Chapter III (freedom of establishment) of the Services Directive applicable to purely internal situations, or is the assessment of the question of whether that chapter applies governed by the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services in purely internal situations?

               5.

                           a.

                           Does a scheme as referred to under 8 which is included in a zoning plan fall within the scope of the term ‘requirement’ as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 7, and Article 14, paragraph 5, of the Services Directive, and not within the scope of the term ‘authorisation scheme’ as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 6, and Articles 9 and 10 of the Services Directive?

                           b.

                           Do Article 14, paragraph 5, of the Services Directive — if a scheme as referred to under 8 falls within the scope of the term ‘requirement’ — or Articles 9 and 10 of the Services Directive — if a scheme as referred to under 8 falls within the scope of the term ‘authorisation’ — preclude a municipality from adopting a scheme as referred to under 8?

               6.

               Does a scheme as referred to under 8 fall within the scope of Articles 34 to 36, or of Articles 49 to 55 of the TFEU and, if so, do the exceptions recognised by the Court of Justice apply, provided they are proportionate?

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2000 in Case T-54/00 R: Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa and Others v Council of the European Union (Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Anchovy fishing quota allocated to Portugal to be fished in waters under French jurisdiction — Intervention — Admissibility)

text:
4.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 316/25
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                           of 12 July 2000                                                            of 10 July 2000
                                                                           in Case T-54/00 R: Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores
in Case T-45/00 Conseil National des Professions de                        de Guipúzcoa and Others v Council of the European
l’Automobile and Others v Commission of the European                                                       Union
                          Communities (1)
                                                                           (Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of
                                                                           a measure — Anchovy fishing quota allocated to Portugal to
(Action for annulment — Commission Regulation (EC)                         be fished in waters under French jurisdiction — Intervention
               No 2790/1999 — Inadmissibility)                                                       — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/49)
                          (2000/C 316/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: French)                          In Case T-54/00 R, Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de
                                                                           Guipúzcoa, established in San Sebastián, Spain, Federación de
                                                                           Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, established in Bilbao,
                                                                           Spain, Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Cantabria,
In Case T-45/00: Conseil National des Professions de l’Auto-               established in Santander, Spain, and 59 others, represented
mobile, whose registered office is in Suresnes, France, Fédé-              by R. Garcı́a-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, of the Madrid Bar, and
ration Nationale des Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de              D. Domı́nguez Pérez, of the La Coruña Bar, and S. J. Berwin
Matériels de Bâtiments, de Travaux Publics et de Manutention,              and Co., 19 Square de Meeûs, Brussels, against the Council of
whose registered office is in Joinville-Le-Pont, France, Auto              the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery, I Dı́ez Parra and
Contrôle 31 SA and Yam 31 SARL, whose registered offices                   Mrs Sims-Robertson) — application for suspension of the
are in Toulouse, France, Marc Foucher-Creteau, resident in                 operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of
Paris, and Verdier Distribution SARL, whose registered office              17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities
is in Juvignac, France, represented by C. Bourgeon, of the Paris           and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
Chambers of F. Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe, against Commission                    Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are
of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — applica-                    required and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (OJ 1999
tion for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)                       L 341, p. 1), in so far as it provides that the anchovy
No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of                     quota allocated to Portugal in ICES zones IX and X, CECAF
Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements           area 34.1.1 may partly be fished in the French sector of
and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — the Court                 ICES zone VIII, or any other interim measure it considers
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,               appropriate — the President of the Court of First Instance
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has         made an order on 10 July 2000 the operative part of which is
made an order on 12 July 2000, the operative part of which is              as follows:
as follows:
                                                                           1.    The Commission is granted leave to intervene in Case T-54/00
1.    The application is dismissed as being inadmissible.                        R in support of the forms of order sought by the defendant.
                                                                           2.    The application made by the Comunidad Autónoma del Paı́s
2.    The applicants are ordered to bear the costs.                              Vasco to intervene in Case T-54/00 R is dismissed.
                                                                           3.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                           4.    Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-103/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Fratex Industria e Comércio v OHIM– USA Track & Field (TRACK & FIELD USA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark TRACK & FIELD USA — Earlier national figurative mark TRACK & FIELD — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/56

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Fratex Industria e Comércio v OHIM– USA Track & Field (TRACK & FIELD USA)
   (Case T-103/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark TRACK & FIELD USA - Earlier national figurative mark TRACK & FIELD - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/97
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fratex Indústria e Comércio, Ltda (São Paolo, Brasil) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: USA Track & Field, Inc (Indiana, United States of America)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of 18 January 2007 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case No R. 1061/2005-4)) concerning opposition proceedings between Fratex Indústria e Comércio, Ltda and USA Track & Field, Inc

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders Fratex Indústria e Comércio, Ltda to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Action brought on 7 July 1997 by the Portuguese Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-246/97)

text:
6 . 9 . 97                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 271 /7
     — the supervisory system as a whole exhibits                       Action brought on 7 July 1997 by the Portuguese
             deficiencies ( in contrast, isolated shortcomings          Republic against the Commission of the European
             which do not say anything about the operation of                                     Communities
             the system as a whole have to be treated                                           Case C-246/97 )
             differently, namely by refusing Community
             financing for a number of identified transactions in                                ( 97/C 271 /09
             respect of which the conditions for the grant of
             financing are not met),
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
     — the deficiencies must be sufficiently serious ( the              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
             seriousness of the deficiencies should be assessed         the European Communities on 7 July 1997 by the
             partly in the light of the complexity of the               Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Joao Mota de
             Community provisions which the Member States               Campos, Dr Luis Ines Fernandes and Dr Maria Lufsa
             are having to implement and of the risk that               Duarte, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
             certain sums were wrongly incurred ), and                  Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
     — it may reasonably be considered that the
             deficiencies have resulted in wrongful expenditure         The applicant claims that the Court should :
             or even fraud ( and hence in a loss for the
             EAGGF); in addition, the flat-rate corrections
             should be commensurate with the risk so found .            — declare null and void the Commission's Decision
                                                                            requiring the Portuguese Government to suspend aid
                                                                            in the shape of a State guarantee granted to the
     In the applicant's view, the Commission was not                        undertaking       EPAC       —      Empresa    para     a
     entitled, on the basis of the verifications carried out by             Agroalimenta^ao e Cereais, SA,
     EAGGF officials, ( i ) to consider that the Belgian
     supervisory system as a whole exhibited deficiencies,
      ( ii ) to impose linear corrections and apply to the              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     applicant the most severe correction factor of 10%
     and ( iii ) to apply the linear correction to all
     expenditure relating to the sectors concerned. In any              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     event, the summary report does not contain sufficient
     reasons to justify such a correction .
                                                                        — lack of legal basis,
— Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, the
     principle patere legem quam ipsi fecisti and Article 190           — unlawful adoption of the interim measure by the
     of the EC Treaty:                                                      Commission .
     Assuming that there is justification for applying a flat              — lack of legal basis : despite the fact that neither the
     rate correction in this case ( which is denied ), it might                 Treaty nor secondary legislation provides for the
     at least be expected that the Commission would                             adoption of interim measures in the context of
     comply with its own guidelines, in particular the rules                    proceedings under Article 93 of the EC Treaty, the
     set out in its document No IV/216/93 , when carrying                       power to adopt them was afforded to the
     out that correction .                                                      Commission by the case-law of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance . However, the Commission must not
                                                                                impose upon a Member State an inappropriate and
— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of                       fundamental measure whose nature and effect is
     the duty to state reasons:                                                 that of a definitive measure. When exercising its
                                                                                quasi-judicial power to take interim measures, the
                                                                                Commission cannot dispense — as it has done —
     Neither the contested decision nor the summary report                      with verifying whether there is a prima facie case,
     set out reasons justifying a flat-rate correction of 10%                   since to do so makes its decision manifestly
     in      the   beef and    veal  sector when    the  flat-rate              arbitrary. Moreover, the Commission took no
     correction applied in respect of that sector as regards                    account whatsoever of the damage which the
     the Netherlands, Germany and France is only 5% .                           interim measure imposed could entail for the
     Not only are no reasons given for that difference in                       Portuguese State, EPAC and its creditor banks.
     treatment, but also it is not based on objective criteria .                Finally, the Commission cannot extend the exercise
     The evidence submitted by the applicant in that                            of the extraordinary powers conferred by the
     respect to the Commission in the application for                           Court of First Instance to situations not provided
     conciliation was simply ignored by the Commission.                         for in that case-law by requiring that the grant of
                                                                                a State guarantee ( without transfer of State
                                                                                resources ), rather than non-existent payments, be
                                                                                suspended,
 ---pagebreak--- C 271 /8             1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 9 . 97
    — breach of the principle of proportionality: if, in             2.  Is it relevant that in Austria most nurseries are State
         observance of the Commission's interim measure,                 run or State-aided ?
         Portugal were to take the step of suspending
         immediately the State's guarantee, the creditor
         banks could demand immediate payment by the
         State of EPAC 's credit — which would thus be
         rendered insolvent and consequently have to be
         wound up — or directly from the Portuguese State            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
         on the basis of its contractual responsibility.             Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 24 March
                                                                     1997 in the case of Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH v. Löwa
                                                                                Warenhandel GmbH
         The measure which the Commission seeks to
         impose is, therefore, manifestly fundamental and                                   ( Case C-255/97)
         inappropriate and absolutely disproportionate to                                     ( 97/C 271/11 )
         any damage — which the Commission did not
         even attempt to identify — which might arise from
         the State's maintaining the guarantee until the final       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         decision,                                                   European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
                                                                     Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 24 March 1997,
                                                                     which was received at the Court Registry on 14 July 1997,
    — failure of the Commission to provide figures for its           for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pfeiffer Großhandel
         accounting: the mere granting of the State                  GmbH v. Löwa Warenhandel GmbH on the following
         guarantee does not constitute aid since the                 question:
         guarantee cannot be described as aid inasmuch as
          EPAC is not due payment of amounts owed by                 Is Article 30 or Article 52 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
         way of capital or interest from the State acting as         interpreted as precluding the application of national
         guarantor on behalf of a debtor undertaking, nor            provisions which require that in the case of trade marks or
         would it be sufficient that EPAC's claim against            designations of undertakings which are liable to be
          Silopor, for which the State is liable, were satisfied     confused the one with earlier priority is to be protected,
          for EPAC to be able to dispense entirely with the          and hence prohibit an undertaking from using, in three
          State's guarantee and completely recover its               provinces of Austria, a trade mark or designation under
          financial equilibrium .                                    which companies in the same group lawfully operate in
                                                                     other Member States ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Linz by order of that court of 24 October 1996 in the case           Commerce, Brussels, by judgment of that court of 7 July
of Gabriele Gruber v. Silhouette International Schmied               1997 in the case of Procureur du Roi v. Déménagements-
                       GmbH & Co KG .                                Manutention       Transport SA, abbreviated       as     D.M.
                        ( Case C-249/97)                                                         Transport
                                                                                ( Case C-256/97)
                           97/C 271 / 10
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /12 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
Linz ( Labour and Social Court) of 24 October 1996,                  Commerce ( Commercial Court), Brussels of 7 July 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 8 July 1997,             received at the Court Registry on 15 July 1997, for a
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gabriele Gruber v.           preliminary ruling in the case of Procureur du Roi against
Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co KG on the                 Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA, abbreviated
following questions :                                                as D.M. Transport, on the following questions:
                                                                     1 . Is Article 92 of the Treaty to be interpreted as
1 . Is it compatible with Article 119 of the EC Treaty                   meaning that measures in the form of payment
    that, owing to lack of child-care facilities,                        facilities granted by a public body such as the ONSS
    predominantly women have to terminate their                          enabling a commercial company to retain over a
    employment in order to look after their children and                 period of at least eight years a proportion of the sums
    these women, despite fulfilment of additional                        collected from staff and to use those sums in support
    conditions ( longer service ), receive no more than half             of its commercial activities, when that undertaking is
    of the compensation payable upon termination of                      unable to obtain funding under normal market
    employment for the actual length of their service                    conditions or to increase its capital, are to be
     ( Paragraph 23a ( 3 ) of the Angestelltengesetz ) whilst            considered State aid within the meaning of that
    men keep the full compensation period ?                               article ?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Arbitrage of the Kingdom of Belgium by judgment of that court of 19 February 1997 in the case brought by Fédération Belge des Chambres Syndicales de Médecins concerning annulment of Article 4 (2) of the Decree of the Flemish Community of 5 April 1995 (Case C-93/97)

text:
No C 131 /8           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 4 . 97
Reference      for   a       preliminary   ruling     from   the       move to another Member State, where the person has
Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 18 July                  worked and become habitually resident, and finally
1996 in the case of Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio              returns to the first Member State in order to seek work, is
Gorgonzola v. ( 1 ) Kaserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH                 it compatible with the requirements of Article 48 of the
   & Co KG and (2 ) Eduard Bracharz Gesellschaft mbH                   Treaty of Rome for the first Member State to impose a
                        ( Case C-87/97)                                condition of habitual residence in that State ( involving the
                                                                       existence of an appreciable period of residence in that
                          ( 97/C 131/18 )                              State ) on entitlement to a general non-contributory means
                                                                       tested state benefit with the characteristics of British
                                                                       income support ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 18 July 1996, which
was received at the Court Registry on 27 February 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Consorzio per la
Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v. ( 1 ) Kaserei Champi               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
gnon Hofmeister GmbH & Co KG and ( 2 ) Eduard Bra                     Bundessozialgericht, by order of that court of 12 December
charz Gesellschaft mbH on the following questions:                     1996 in the case of Arif Altiney v. Bundesanstalt fur
                                                                                Arbeit
— Is it compatible, in the current state of Community                                          ( Case C-91 /97 )
     law, with the principles of the free movement of goods
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /20 )
     (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) that a cheese
     which has been lawfully produced in a Member State
     since 1977 and designated by the name 'Cambozola',                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and which has been marketed in another Member                     European        Communities           by    order  of        the
     State since 1983, is not permitted to be marketed in              Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) of 12 December
     the latter Member State under the name 'Cambozola',               1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     on the basis of a national measure referring to an                3 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Arif
     international agreement for the protection of                     Altiney v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit ( Federal Employment
     geographical designations of origin and names of                  Office ) on the following question:
     certain products ( which protects the designation
     ' Gorgonzola') and referring to a national prohibition            Is a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the
     of misleading statements ?                                        labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of
                                                                       Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey
— Does it make any difference to the answer to that                    Association Council on the development of the
     question if the packaging of the cheese designated as             Association, and is he legally employed in that State, if he
     'Cambozola' bears a clearly visible indication of the             has been permitted to work only for a limited period not
     country of manufacture ('Deutscher Weichkase'), if                exceeding three years as a speciality chef in a speciality
                                                                       restaurant ?
     that cheese is as a rule not displayed and sold to
     consumers in the form of whole cheeses, but in pieces,
     sometimes without the original packaging ?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Arbitrage
                                                                       of the Kingdom of Belgium by judgment of that court of
                                                                        19 February 1997 in the case brought by Federation Beige
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security              des Chambres Syndicales de Medecins concerning
Commissioner, by decision of 25 February 1997, in the                   annulment of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Decree of the Flemish
  case of Robin Swaddling against the Adjudication Officer                               Community of 5 April 1995
                         ( Case C-90/97 )                                                       ( Case C-93/97 )
                           ( 97/C 131/19 )                                                        ( 97/C 131 /21 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour
European Communities by decision of the Social Security
 Commissioner of 25 February 1997, which was received
                                                                        d'Arbitrage ( Court of Arbitration ) of the Kingdom of
                                                                        Belgium of 19 February 1997, received at the Court
 at the Court Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Robin Swaddling against the                      Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling on the
Adjudication Officer, on the following question:
                                                                        following questions in the case brought by Federation
                                                                        Beige des Chambres Syndicales de Medecins ( Belgian
                                                                        Federation of Doctors' Associations ) concerning
 In circumstances where a person has worked and been                    annulment of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Decree of the Flemish
 habitually resident in one Member State, has then                      Community of 5 April 1995 , amending the Decree of
 exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers to              12 June 1991 relating to universities in the Flemish
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 4 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 131 /9
Community, concerning organization of specific training               1 . On the proper interpretation of Article 26 , where in a
in general medical practice and other provisions relating                   single transaction a tour operator provides a service to the
to universities :                                                           traveller part of which is supplied to the tour operator by
                                                                            other taxable persons ('bought in') and part of which is
                                                                            supplied by the tour operator from its own resources ('in
1 . Must Article 31 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 93/16/                 house'), on what basis is the tour operator's margin under
      EEC f 1 ) of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free                      Article 26 (2 ) to be calculated ?
      movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of
      their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
      formal qualifications, in conjunction with Articles 3           2 . Is Article 26 to be interpreted as :
      and 23 and with the other provisions of Title IV of
      that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that the                    ( a ) requiring the apportionment of the total amount
      specific training in general medical practice cannot                        received by the tour operator from the traveller
      begin until after the person concerned has obtained,                        between bought in and in-house supplies by
      after at least six years' study, the diploma referred to                    reference to the costs of the components; or
      in Article 3 ?
                                                                            ( b ) as authorizing Member States to require
2 . Must Article 31 ( 1 ) ( d) of that Directive be interpreted                   apportionment by reference to such costs ( i )
      as meaning that the 'personal participation of the                          generally or ( ii ) in the case of operations of the
      trainee     in    the professional       activities   and                   kind in the issue in the present case;
      responsibilities of the persons with whom he works'
      requires the trainee to pursue the activities of a doctor                   or
      which are reserved to holders of the diplomas required
      by Articles 2 and 3 of the Directive ?
                                                                            (c ) as leaving such apportionment to be made in
                                                                                accordance with the normal principles for
3 . If so, must that same provision be interpreted as                             determining the taxable amount under Article 1 1 ?
      meaning that the trainee should pursue the activities of
      a doctor from the beginning of the specific training in         f 1 ) OJNoL 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
      general medical practice, whether that training is the
      full-time training laid down by Article 31 of the
      Directive or the part-time training laid down by
      Article 34 ?
H OJ NoL 165 , 7. 7. 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                      Action brought on 6 March 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-96/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/23 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, by direction of that court of 26 February 1997,             An action against the French Republic was brought before
in the case of T. R Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Howden Court Hotel against the Commissioners of                       6 March 1997 by tfie Commission of the European
                       Customs and Excise                             Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright and
                                                                      Jean-Francois Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address
                          ( Case C-94/97)                             for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                            ( 97/C 131 /22                            de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by direction of the VAT and
 Duties Tribunal of 26 February 1997, which was received              — declare that, by failing to notify or to bring into force
 at the Court Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
 ruling in the case of T. R Madgett and R. M. Baldwin                        necessary in order to comply with Commission
 trading as Howden Court Hotel against the                                   Directive 91 /412/EEC of 23 July 1991 laying down
 Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the following                       the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing
 questions :                                                                 practice for veterinary medicinal products ( 1 ), the
                                                                             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under that Directive,
 If it is determined in Case C-308/96 that the provisions of
 Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive ( J ) apply to
 operations of the kind in issue in the present case:                  — order the French Republic to pay the costs .


title: Case T-290/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — Sports Warehouse v OHIM (TENNIS WAREHOUSE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TENNIS WAREHOUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Distinctive character — Obligation to state reasons — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — Sports Warehouse v OHIM (TENNIS WAREHOUSE)
   (Case T-290/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TENNIS WAREHOUSE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Distinctive character - Obligation to state reasons - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 13/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sports Warehouse GmbH (Schutterwald, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially S. Schäffner and subsequently R. Pethke, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2010 (Case R 1259/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TENNIS WAREHOUSE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sports Warehosue GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-283/13 P: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2014  — Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission, Denmark

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2014 — Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission, Denmark
   (Case C-283/13 P) (1)

   2014/C 253/32
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case C-161/01 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by Franco Campoli against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-100/00 between Franco Campoli and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/40               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14.7.2001
—    As regards examination of the merits, the CFI failed to             —     order the European Commission to compensate him for
     comply with its obligation to stay within the limits of                   material and non-material damage;
     the application and exceeded them, thereby infringing
     Community law.                                                      —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—    The CFI also infringed Article 33(1), second sentence,
     ECSC in that it failed to examine whether there had been
     a manifest failure by the Commission to observe a                   Pleas and main arguments
     relevant provision and failed to appreciate that the
     application did not even satisfy the requirement to show            —     Breach of the right to a fair hearing: Before the decision
     the alleged manifestness of the infringement.                             was taken to transfer him, the appellant was approached
                                                                               in vague and general terms by his line manager for alleged
—    Furthermore, the CFI infringed Article 33(1) ECSC in so
                                                                               lack of care and attention in his work, which was
     far as it annulled the contested decision as a whole and
                                                                               subsequently contradicted in his staff report. It was thus
     not merely with regard to the part of the decision with
                                                                               that, without being heard beforehand and without the
     which the CFI found fault, namely the authorisation of
                                                                               chance to make any comments, a decision to transfer him
     the merger of RAG with SBW, not the merger with
                                                                               was taken by the appointing authority.
     Preussag Anthrazit GmbH.
—    Finally, the CFI infringed its duty to state reasons, because
     it did not adequately deal with the arguments submitted
     by the Commission and the interveners in their pleadings
     and at the hearing, even though they related to main
     grounds of the decision.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                         Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of the Austrian Republic by
                                                                         decision of that Court of 14 March 2001 in the case of
                                                                         Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission
                                                                         in Österreich (Works council of the Representation of
                                                                         the European Commission in Austria) v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by Franco Campoli
against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the                                             (Case C-165/01)
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-100/00 between Franco
 Campoli and Commission of the European Communities                                               (2001/C 200/74)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (Case C-161/01 P)
                                                                         European Communities by a decision of the Oberster Gericht-
                                                                         shof of 14 March 2001, which was received at the Court
                         (2001/C 200/73)                                 Registry on 18 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission in
                                                                         Österreich (Works council of the Representation of the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001                 European Commission in Austria) v Commission of the
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities, on the following questions:
European Communities in Case T-100/00 between Franco
Campoli and the Commission of the European Communities                   1.    Is Article 79 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Servants of the European Communities [Article 3 of
Communities on 12 April 2001 by Franco Campoli, represent-                     Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of
ed by S. Diana, lawyer, with an address for service in Brussels.               29 February 1968 (1)], under which the conditions of
                                                                               employment of local staff, in particular: (a) the manner of
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    their engagement and termination of their contract, (b)
                                                                               their leave, and (c) their remuneration is to be determined
—    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  by each institution in accordance with current rules and
     6 March 2001 in Case T-100/00;                                            practice in the place where they are to perform their
                                                                               duties, to be understood as a reference to the relevant
—    annul the two decisions taken by Mr Lemmel (No 05266                      national law on employment, which, in the case of
     of 11 June 1999 and of 2 December 1999), concerning                       Austria, also requires the application of the law on labour
     the removal of Franco Campoli and the appointment of                      relations in the workplace laid down in Part II of the
     Chantal Bruetschy to the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and                    Austrian Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz (Labour Constitution
     scientific and technical aspects’ unit;                                   Act)?


title: Case T-546/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/50

         Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)
   (Case T-546/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/90
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nordmilch AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schneider, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lactimilk, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      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 September 2010 in Joined Cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4, in so far as it refuses Community trade mark application 002 851 384 for certain goods in Classes 5 and 29;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘MILRAM’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30, 33, 33 and 43.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lactimilk, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘RAM’ for goods in Classes 29, and various national word marks ‘RAM’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection in part of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, in so far as the opposition in respect of certain goods was rejected and refusal of registration for the goods in question.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. The applicant also claims that the Board of Appeal did not take account, in respect of an opposing mark, that its protection had expired at the time of the decision of 15 September 2010.

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


title: Case T-490/09: Action brought on 8 December 2009 — Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/43

         Action brought on 8 December 2009 — Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi v Commission
   (Case T-490/09)
   2010/C 37/61
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final in Case COMP. 37 956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption — adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009.

               —

                           —

                           Annul Article 2 of the decision insofar as the applicant is ordered to pay the sum of EUR 6,093 million jointly and severally with the company Leali SpA.

               —

               —

               Reduce the amount of the fine imposed.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-472/09 SP v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 January 2000 in Case C-164/98 P: DIR International Film Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (MEDIA Programme — Criteria for the grant of loans — Discretionary power — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 79/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          18.3.2000
the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after                Article 4(1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May
amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                       1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                        relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathe-              uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that,
let, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,           where a person’s sole economic activity, within the meaning of that
has given a judgment on 13 January 2000, in which it has                     provision, consists in the letting of an item of tangible property to a
ruled:                                                                       company or a partnership, such as a partnership governed by
                                                                             Netherlands law, of which he is a member, that letting must be
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)            regarded as an independent activity within the meaning of that
precludes national legislation which provides that bakers, butchers          provision.
and grocers may not make sales on rounds in a given administrative
district, such as an Austrian Verwaltungsbezirk, unless they also            (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
pursue their commercial activity at a permanent establishment
situated in that administrative district or in an adjacent municipality,
where they offer for sale the same goods as they do on rounds.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-164/98 P: DIR International Film Srl and Others
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (MEDIA Programme — Criteria for the grant of loans —
                         of 27 January 2000                                           Discretionary power — Statement of reasons)
in Case C-23/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                (2000/C 79/04)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands): Staatsse-
              cretaris van Financiën v J. Heerma (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Transactions between a partner and
                            a partnership)                                   In Case C-164/98 P, DIR International Film Srl, established in
                                                                             Rome (Italy), Nostradamus Enterprises Ltd, established in
                           (2000/C 79/03)                                    London (United Kingdom),Union PN Srl, established in Rome,
                                                                             United International Pictures BV, established in Amsterdam
                                                                             (Netherlands), United International Pictures AB, established
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                           in Stockholm (Sweden), United International Pictures APS,
                                                                             established in Copenhagen (Denmark), United International
                                                                             Pictures A/S, established in Oslo (Norway), United Inter-
                                                                             national Pictures EPE, established in Athens (Greece), United
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             International Pictures OY, established in Helsinki (Finland),
                    in the European Court Reports)                           and United International Pictures y Cı́a SRC, established
                                                                             in Madrid (Spain), represented by A. Vandencasteele and
In Case C-23/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 O. Speltdoorn, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Hoge Raad der                      in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Nederlanden, (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the                  Mathias Hardt, appeal against the judgment of the Court of
proceedings pending before that court between Staatssecretaris               First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)
van Financiën and J. Heerma — on the interpretation of                       of 19 February 1998 in Joined Cases T-369/94 and T-85/95
Article 4(1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of                  DIR International Film and Others v Commission [1998] ECR
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   II-357, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                   to the proceedings being The Commission of the European
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)                 Communities, represented by K. Banks — the Court (Sixth
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,                    Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch                     Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch
(Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General:                     (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General,
G. Cosmas, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has                S. Alber; L. Hewlett, Administrator for the Registrar, has given
given a judgment on 27 January 2000 in which it has ruled:                   a judgment on 27 January 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 79/3
1. Sets aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment                               ORDER OF THE COURT
     of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 1998 in Joined
     Cases T-369/94 and T-85/95 DIR International Film and
     Others v Commission;                                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                                of 9 December 1999
3. Reserves the costs.
(1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.                                                   in Case C-299/98 P: CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo
                                                                             Gadus Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Recovery of post-clearance customs duties —
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2454/93 — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and mani-
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                                festly unfounded)
                      of 26 November 1999
                                                                                (2000/C 79/06)
in Case C-192/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte dei Conti): ex post facto review proceedings
against Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade
                              (ANAS) (1)                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
(Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ —
Directive 92/50/EC — Procedures for the award of public                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         service contracts)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                           (2000/C 79/05)
                                                                             In Case C-299/98 P: CPL Imperial 2 SpA, established in
                                                                             Pescara, Italy, and Unifrigo Gadus Srl, established in Naples,
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                          Italy, represented by G. Celona, of the Milan Bar, with an
                                                                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                             G. Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II — appeal against the judgment
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (Third Chamber) of 9 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-10/97 and
                                                                             T-11/97 Unifrigo Gadus and CPL Imperial 2 v Commission
In Case C-192/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                [1998] ECR II-2231, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte dei Conti                  the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the ex post facto review                 European Communities (Agent: P. Stancanelli) — the Court
proceedings pending before that court against Azienda Nazion-                of Justice (Fourth Chamber), composed of D.A.O. Edward
ale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS) on the interpretation of                    (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                  H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 9 December 1999, in
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court, composed of                     which it:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presi-               1. Dismisses the appeal;
dents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
chet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and
V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   2. Orders CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo Gadus Srl to pay the
Registrar, has made an order on 26 November 1999, the                             costs.
operative part of which is as follows:
The Court does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions raised
by the Corte dei Conti in its decision for reference of 7 April 1998.        (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2001 in Case T-187/00: Gödecke AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the application for a Community trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 161/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           2.6.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 March 2001
                         of 6 March 2001                                 in Case T-298/00: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen
                                                                         pour le développement de la formation professionnelle
                                                                                (Cedefop) (1)
in Case T-187/00: Gödecke AG v Office for Harmonisation                  (Officials — Action which has become devoid of purpose —
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                No need to adjudicate)
                            (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/40)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of                                           (Language of the case: French)
the application for a Community trade mark — No need to
                            adjudicate)
                                                                         In Case T-298/00: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the Council
                                                                         of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and V. Peere, avocats, with an address
                         (2001/C 161/39)                                 for service in Luxembourg, against Centre européen pour le
                                                                         développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop)
                                                                         (Agent: B. Wägenbour) — application for annulment of the
                                                                         implied rejection of a claim for payment of a re-installation
                                                                         allowance — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                         composed of P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
                  (Language of the case: English)                        J.D. Cooke, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made an order on
                                                                         12 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action;
In Case T-187/00: Gödecke AG, established in Freiburg im
Breisgau, Germany, represented by W. Schmid and A. Schaben-              2.    Cedefop shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the
berger, Rechtsanwälte, against Office for Harmonisation in the                 applicant.
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
O. Montalto and J. Miranda de Sousa) intervener before the               (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.00.
Court of First Instance: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd,
established in Jerusalem, (Israel), represented by G. Farrington,
Solicitor — appeal against the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2000 (Case R 501/1999-
1), notified to the applicant on 17 May 2000, relating
to opposition proceedings between Gödecke AG and Teva                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd — the Court of First Instance                                           INSTANCE
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili
and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 6 March 2001, the operative part of which is as                                     of 1 February 2001
follows:
                                                                         in Case T-350/00 R: Free Trade Foods NV v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
1.   There is no need to adjudicate.
                                                                         (Interlocutory proceedings — Safeguard measures — Sugar
                                                                         sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin —
                                                                                Urgency)
2.   The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 161/41)
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.00.                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         In Case T-350/00 R: Free Trade Foods NV, having its registered
                                                                         office in Curaçao (Netherlands Antilles), represented by M. Slot-
                                                                         boom and R.J. van Agteren, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. Van der Hauwaert) —