title: Action brought on 3 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-290/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 318/5
      Article 3(1 ) precludes the registration of generic names .       by the Commission of the European Communities,
      In order to establish whether a name is generic,                  represented by Mr James Macdonald Flett, member of the
      particular account is to be taken of the existing situation       Legal Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
      in the Member State in which the name originates, the             Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
      existing situation in other Member States, and the                member of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      relevant national or Community laws . 'Feta ' has been
      produced in Denmark since 1951 . Since 1963 rules have            The Applicant claims that the Court should :
      governed its production . 'Feta' was known and
      produced in the Community before Greece's accession.              — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      Danish 'feta ' was exported to Greece as ' feta ' until Greek            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      rules on ' feta ' were introduced in 1987 . A number of                  Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993
      other Member States including, at all events, besides                    introducing minimum Community measures for the
      Denmark, Germany, France and Finland, produce ' feta '.                  control of certain fish diseases (') and Council Directive
      Moreover, since 1975 'feta' has been covered by various                  93/54/EEC of 24 June 1993 amending Directive
      Community rules . When the Council Regulation was                        91 /67/EEC concerning the animal health conditions
      issued, ' feta' was being lawfully produced and marketed                 governing the placing on the market of aquaculture
      in many Member States .                                                  animals and products ( 2 ), Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under those Directives and under the Treaty
— The registration of 'feta' as a protected designation of                     establishing the European Community,
      origin is, moreover, contrary to the provisions in
      Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty. Under the Court's                      and
      case-law, there must be a geographical link between the
      designation and the region before a designation of origin         — order Ireland to pay the costs .
      can lawfully be protected. The region in question may
      not be an entire country and the designation must not be          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
      used to protect products indiscriminately, whatever
      their origin .                                                    Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty provides that Directives shall be
                                                                        binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member
— In adopting Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/86                   State to which they are addressed . Article 5 of the Treaty
      the   Commission         has  exceeded  the   limits    of its    provides that Member States shall take all appropriate
      discretionary powers .                                            measures, whether general or particular, to ensure
                                                                        fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
                                                                        resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
— Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 is, in respect                Community.
      of 'feta', contrary to the principle of proportionality.
      Protection of Greek feta could be achieved by less                Directives 93/53/EEC and 93/54/EEC provide that Member
      onerous means . The Commission regulation is,                     States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and
      moreover, contrary to the principle of equal treatment            administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
       because 'feta' is a generic name which should be treated         Directives not later than 1 July 1994, and that they shall
      in the same way as other generic names .                          forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
— Lastly, in adopting Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96, the                 The Commission has not received any information
       Commission has acted in breach of its duty of fairness,          concerning measures taken by Ireland to comply with the
       since it disregarded considerable opposition on the part         Directives and has received no official reply to its letter of
       of several Member States .                                       formal notice or its reasoned opinion .
                                                                         ( 1 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 23 .
(') OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992, p . 1 .                                ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 34 .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                        Reutlingen by judgment of that court of 19 August 1996 in
                                                                        the criminal proceedings against Martino Grado and Shahid
Action brought on 3 September 1996 by the Commission                                                       Bashir
          of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                ( Case C-291/96 )
                           ( Case C-290/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/09 )
                             ( 96/C 318/08 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                European Communities by judgment of the Amtsgericht
Justice of the European Communities on 3 September 1996                  ( Local Court ), Reutlingen, of 19 August 1996 , which was


title: Case T-52/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  29 November 2005  — SNCZ v Commission (Competition — Article 81 EC — Cartel — Zinc phosphate market — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment — Action for annulment)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2005 — SNCZ v Commission
   (Case T-52/02) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Cartel - Zinc phosphate market - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 36/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Société nouvelle des couleurs zinciques SA (SNCZ) (Bouchain, France) (represented by: R. Saint-Esteben and H. Calvet, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Lelievre, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and O. Beynet, Agents)
   Application for
   the annulment of Decision 2003/437/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.027 — Zinc phosphate) (OJ 2003 L 153, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.


title: Case T-298/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — Herrero Romeu v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State — Meaning of habitual residence — Statement of grounds — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Herrero Romeu v Commission
   (Case T-298/02) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State - Meaning of habitual residence - Statement of grounds - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2005/C 330/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Anna Herrero Romeu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, J. Guillem Carrau, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, and by J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)
   Application for
   annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 June 2002 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-44/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Kimman v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Revision of the classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Kimman v Commission
   (Case T-44/04) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Revision of the classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 108/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eugène Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. De Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 December 2002 setting the applicant's final classification at Grade B5 and, as far as is necessary, annulment of the Commission's decision of 1 October 2003 rejecting the applicant's complaint.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-86/11: Action brought on 24 February 2011 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/11

         Action brought on 24 February 2011 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-86/11)
   2011/C 145/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by permitting non-taxable persons to be members of a VAT group (a single taxable person for VAT purposes), the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   For reasons of facility and in order to combat possible abuses, the VAT directive allows Member States to treat two or more taxable persons together as a single taxable person. It is submitted that the directive does not allow them to include non-taxable persons in such a group, thus extending the rights and obligations of taxable persons to non-taxable persons. The United Kingdom legislation which permits the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group is thus contrary to the directive.

      (1)  OJ L 347, p. 1


title: Case T-118/04: Action brought on 26 March 2004 by Giuseppe Caló against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/47

         Action brought on 26 March 2004 by Giuseppe Caló against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-118/04)
   (2004/C 118/101)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 2004 by Giuseppe Caló, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the Commission decisions of 9 July and 1 October 2003 and, in so far as necessary, the decision of the President of the Commission of 29 July 2003;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant one euro by way of symbolic compensation for non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case challenges the decision by the appointing authority to re-assign him, and four other directors of the DG ESTAT, together with his post, to the duties of principal adviser to the Director General of the directorate general to which he is assigned, as well as the decision to initiate the procedure for filling the posts for directors of the directorates ESTAT/B, ESTAT/C, ESTAT/D, ESTAT/E and ESTAT/F, on the basis of Article 29(1)(a) and (c) and Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   Those decisions were adopted following the establishment of irregularities within EUROSTAT.
   In support of his claims the applicant pleads:

               —

               infringement of Article 2(1) of the Staff Regulations and the Commission Decisions of 21 January 1998 and 9 November 2001 on the exercise of the powers of the appointing authority, inasmuch as the decision to transfer the applicant to the post of principal adviser was taken by an authority not having the powers of an appointing authority;

               —

               infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons;

               —

               illegality of the vacancy notices COM/173/03, COM/174/03, COM/175/03, COM/176/03 and COM/177/03, inasmuch as they establish no framework of legality in regard to which the institution is to seek to carry out a comparative examination of the candidates' respective merits;

         Finally, the contested decisions undermine the applicant's professional reputation and dignity.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 29 February 1996 in Case C-193/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Amtsgericht Tiergarten): Criminal proceedings against Sofia Skanavi and Konstantin Chryssanthakopoulos (Freedom of movement for persons - Driving licences - Obligation to exchange them - Penalties)

text:
No C 133/8             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4 . 5 . 96
certain wines in Italy and France, the Court, composed of                 Treaty precludes the driving of a motor vehicle by a
President, E. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, C. N. Kakouris and                   person who could have obtained a licence from the host
D. A. O. Edward ( Presidents of Chambers ) G. F. Mancini ,                State in exchange for the licence issued by another
F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),                      Member State but who did not make that exchange
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                       within the prescribed period from being treated as
L. Sévon, Judges; Advocate-General : G. Cosmas, Registrar:                driving without a licence and thus rendered punishable
L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on                        by imprisonment or a fine.
29 February 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      (') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
 1 , dismisses the application;
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
C ) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 February 1996
                                                                      in Case C-215/94 ( Reference for a preliminary ruling from
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the Bundesfinanzhof): Jürgen Mohr v. Finanzamt Bad
                      of 29 February 1996                                                         Segeberg ( 1 )
in Case C-193/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made            (VAT — Definition of suppply of services — Definitive
by the Amtsgericht Tiergarten ): Criminal proceedings                 discontinuation of milk production — Compensation
             against Sofia Skanavi and Konstantin                            received under Regulation (EEC) No 1336/86)
                    Chryssanthakopoulos ( 1 )                                                   (9 6/C 133/16 )
(Freedom of movement for persons — Driving licences —
          Obligation to exchange them — Penalties)                                   (Language of the case: German)
                          ( 96/C 133/15 )
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: German)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         In Case C-215/94 : Reference to the Court under Article 177
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
In Case C-193/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Jürgen Mohr and Finanzamt Bad Segeberg — on the
of the EC Treaty by the Amtsgericht ( Local Court)                   interpretation of Articles 6(1 ) and 1 1 (A) ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth
Tiergarten, Berlin, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal          Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
proceedings before that court against Sofia Skanavi and              harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
Konstantin Chryssanthakopoulos — on the interpretation               turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
of Articles 6 , 8a and 52 of the EC Treaty — the Court,              uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) the
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.               Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A . O. Edward,
Kakouris and G. Hirsch, ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.            President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho
Mancini ( Rapporteur), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho            de Almeida, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón,
de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann,                       Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger,                         Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 29 February
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                      1 996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
29 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as                 Articles 6 (1 ) and 11 (A) (1 ) (a) of the Sixth Council
follows :                                                            Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977, on the
                                                                     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
I . As Community law stands at present and priòr to the              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
     implementation of Council Directive 91 /439/EEC of29            uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning
     July 1991 on driving licences, Article 52 of the EC             that an undertaking to discontinue milk production given by
     Treaty does not preclude a Member State from requiring          a farmer under Regulation (EEC) No 1336/86 of 6 May
     the holder ofa driving licence issued by another Member          1986 fixing compensation for the definitive discontinuation
     State to exchange that licence for a licence of the host        of milk production does not constitute a supply of services.
     Member State within one year of taking up normal                Consequently, any compensation received for that purpose
     residence in that State in order to remain entitled to drive    is not subject to turnover tax.
     a motor vehicle there.
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
2 . In view of the resultant consequences, such as may arise
     in the national legal system in question, Article 52 of the


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 25 May 1998 in Case C-81/97: MD Foods Amba and Danske Mejeriers Fællesorganisation v. Commission of the European Communities (Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance for annulment of the same act - Decision of the Court of First Instance declining jurisdiction - Objection of inadmissibility - Referral of proceedings to the Court of First Instance)

text:
5.9.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/9
2. Costs are reserved.                                               Brown Holding SA, 310 Route d'Esch, L-1471
                                                                     Luxembourg Ð application for annulment of Commission
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                              Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
                                                                     registration of geographical indications and designations
                                                                     of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
                                                                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148,
                                                                     21.6.1996, p. 1) in so far as it concerns registration of the
                                                                     name feta' as a protected designation of origin Ð the
                                                                     Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.
                                                                     Schintgen (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G. F.
                       of 25 May 1998                                Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
in Case C-81/97: MD Foods Amba and Danske Mejeriers                  Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
Fñllesorganisation v. Commission of the European                     Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola,
                        Communities (1)                              Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     25 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the
Court of First Instance for annulment of the same act Ð
Decision of the Court of First Instance declining
jurisdiction Ð Objection of inadmissibility Ð Referral of            1. Case C-81/97 is referred to the Court of First Instance.
         proceedings to the Court of First Instance)
                         (98/C 278/15)
                                                                     2. The costs are reserved.
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
In Case C-81/97: MD Foods Amba, established at Viby
(Denmark), and Danske Mejeriers Fñllesorganisation,
established at Aarhus (Denmark), acting on behalf of
1. KlùverMñlk        Amba,      established    at     Fredericia
    (Denmark),                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 25 May 1998
2. Lùgismose Produktion A/S, established at Hårby                    in Case C-82/97: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co.
    (Denmark),                                                       KG and Others v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
3. Mejeriselskabet Vesthimmerland, established at Farsù              (Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the
    (Denmark),                                                       Court of First Instance for annulment of the same act Ð
                                                                     Decision of the Court of First Instance declining
4. Nordex Food         A/S,   established   at  Dronninglund         jurisdiction Ð Objection of inadmissibility Ð Referral of
    (Denmark),                                                                proceedings to the Court of First Instance)
                                                                                (98/C 278/16)
5. Sinai Landmejeri, in the person of Gunnar Larsen,
    established at Broby (Denmark),
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
6. Sñdager       Andelsmejeri,     established     at    Hobro
    (Denmark),
                                                                     In Case C-82/97: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, established at Tettnang (Germany), Hochland Reich,
represented by G. Lett, of the Copenhagen Bar, and N.                Summer & Co. KG, established in Heimenkirch
Scandamis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service            (Germany), Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, established at
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Assa, 1 Rue                      Crailsheim (Germany), Milchwerk Geislingen eG,
Jean-Pierre Brasseur, v. Commission of the European                  established at Geislingen/Steige (Germany), Wendelstein
Communities (Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and H.                  Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co. KG,
Stùvlbñk), supported by the Hellenic Republic (Agents: I.            established at Bad Aibling (Germany), and Zentral-
Chalkias and I. Galani-Maragkoudaki), the Council of the             Molkerei Aurich GmbH, established at Aurich (Germany),
European Union (Agents: O. Petersen and J.-P. Hix) and               represented by J. Salzwedel and M. Loschelder,
Koinopraktiki Tyrokomikon Monadon Ioanninon Pindos                   Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in
AEBE, the seat of which is at Ioannina (Greece),                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue
represented by N. Korojiannakis, of he Athens Bar, with              Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                (Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker), supported


title: Case T-126/02: Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpapiere AG against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 144/60               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik August                   other cases in which the Commission took a crisis situation
Koehler AG against Commission of the European Com-                       into account as a mitigating circumstance. The Commission
                             munities                                    further failed to take into account, and recognise by a reduction
                                                                         of the fine, the applicant’s cooperation with the Commission
                                                                         during the procedure.
                         (Case T-125/02)
                        (2002/C 144/116)                                 Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission did not
                                                                         make the entire documentation of the investigation available
                                                                         to the applicant. The applicant’s right to a fair hearing was
                   (Language of the case: German)                        thereby infringed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik
August Koehler AG, of Oberkirch (Germany), represented by
I. Brinker, lawyer.                                                      Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpapiere
                                                                           AG against Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-126/02)
—     Annul the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2001
      in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper;                                                 (2002/C 144/117)
—     In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3 of                           (Language of the case: German)
      the decision;
—     Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpa-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          piere AG, of Bergisch Gladbach (Germany), represented by
                                                                         J. Burrichter and M. Wirtz, lawyers.
By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant and ten other undertakings had infringed                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA              — Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 20 Decem-
Agreement by taking part in a number of agreements and                         ber 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper,
concerted practices in the carbonless paper sector, in connec-                 in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 29,76 million on the
tion with which they decided on concerted price increases,                     applicant;
allocated sales quotas, determined market shares and estab-
lished a system for supervision of the anti-competitive agree-           —     In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
ments.                                                                         applicant by Article 3 of the decision;
                                                                         —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant concedes that it took part in such a cartel, but
only from October 1993. It further submits that in determining
the fine the Commission did not take proper account of the
size of the undertakings concerned. In terms of economic                 Pleas in law and main arguments
capability, the applicant was hit much harder by the fine
imposed than the other undertakings fined. The Commission
thereby infringed the principle of proportionality.                      By the contested decision the Commission found that the
                                                                         applicant and ten other undertakings had infringed
                                                                         Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA
The applicant further submits that, although the applicant was           Agreement by taking part in a number of agreements and
occasioned to take part in the cartel by threats, the Commission         concerted practices in the carbonless paper sector, in connec-
refused to regard that as a mitigating circumstance. Moreover,           tion with which they decided on concerted price increases,
the Commission did not take note of the fact that the applicant          allocated sales quotas, determined market shares and estab-
was occasioned to take part in the cartel as a result of a specific      lished a system for supervision of the anti-competitive agree-
crisis situation. Therein lay unequal treatment compared to              ments.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/61
The applicant contests the fine imposed on it, and in particular        The applicant claims that the Court should:
its amount. It submits that the Commission ascertained the
facts erroneously and assessed incorrectly the facts ascertained        —     annul Decision R 0466/2000-2 of the Second Board of
by it, especially with respect to the applicant’s merely passive              Appeal of the Office of 18 February 2002;
participation in the cartel. The Commission further assessed
incorrectly the non-implementation or delayed implemen-
                                                                        —     order the Office to pay the costs.
tation of the agreements. The same applies to the considerable
price falls and fluctuations during the period of the infringe-
ment and to the influence of manufacturing costs on prices.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
With respect to the gravity of the infringement, the applicant
submits inter alia that the Commission failed to take appropri-         Community trade mark            The figurative mark ‘ECA’ —
ately into account, besides the minor effects of the cartel, the        sought:                         application No 1106442
poor economic situation of the sector and the early termination
of the infringement. The Commission also failed to take into            Goods or services:              Goods and services in classes 9,
account the purely passive role played by the applicant in the                                          41 and 42
cartel and its crucial importance for bringing the infringement
to an early end. It thereby infringed the principle of pro-             Decision        contested       Examiner’s refusal to register
portionality and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 of the               before the Board of
Council.                                                                Appeal:
                                                                        Decision of Board of            Dismissal of appeal
The fine imposed on the applicant further discriminates against         Appeal:
it compared with much more active members of the cartel.
                                                                        Pleas in law:                   —     Incorrect application of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation
The applicant submits, moreover, that the Commission                                                          (EC) No 40/94 (1) and Article
infringed the principle of careful and impartial investigation of                                             6 of the Paris Convention (2)
the aspects of relevance for the assessment of the fine, since it                                             because the figurative mark
failed to follow up numerous indications made by the appli-                                                   is not identical to the Euro-
cant. Finally, the decision infringes the requirement to state                                                pean emblem.
reasons under Article 253 EC.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 december 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Concept-Anlagen u.
Geräte nach ‘GMP’ für Produktion u. Labor GmbH against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)                             Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papeteries Mougeot
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-127/02)
                                                                                (Case T-128/02)
                        (2002/C 144/118)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/119)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Papeteries
18 April 2002 by Concept-Anlagen u. Geräte nach ‘GMP’ für               Mougeot, established in Laval-sur-Vologne France, represented
Produktion u. Labor GmbH, Heidelberg (Germany), represent-              by Guy Barsi, Julien Baumgartner and Jean-Paul Hordies,
ed by G.J. Hodapp, lawyer.                                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-303/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Barqawi v Council

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/45

         Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Barqawi v Council
   (Case T-303/15)
   (2015/C 245/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ahmad Barqawi (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial, since the applicant was never heard before the sanctions at issue were imposed.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appraisal of the facts, in so far as the Council failed to adduce evidence of the facts indicated which underpin the reasoning of the measures taken.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to engage in an occupation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power. The applicant claims that, in so far as the measures adopted by the Council have no effect on the Syrian regime and in so far as applicant always complied with the sanctions imposed by the international community and always remained independent of the incumbent regime, there is reason to believe that the contested measures were adopted for reasons other than those indicated in those measures (market exclusion — favouring other players).

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since the Council’s reasons in support of the contested measures are elliptical and make no reference to specific facts or dates allowing the applicant to identify the commercial operations which he is alleged to have carried out.


title: Action brought on 4 April 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-118/95)

text:
 24 . 6 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 159/ 11
 31 December 1992 ( Directive 92/35/EEC ) and 1 January                 preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
 1993 ( Directive 92/40/EEC ).                                          Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex-parte :
                                                                        Mann Singh Shingara, on the following questions :
 H OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 19 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992, p . 1 .
                                                                        1 . ( 1 ) In Article 8 of Council Directive 64/221 /EEC of
                                                                                25 February 1964 on the coordination of special
                                                                                measures concerning the movement and residence
                                                                                of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds
                                                                                of public policy, public security or public health ( l ),
Action brought on 4 April 1995 by the Commission of the                           do the words 'the same legal remedies . . . as are
       European Communities against the Italian Republic                          available to nationals of the State concerned in
                          ( Case C-118/95 )                                       respect of acts of the administration ' refer (a ) to
                                                                                specific remedies available in respect of decisions
                             ( 95/C 159/22 )                                      concerning entry by nationals of the State
                                                                                concerned ( in casu, an appeal to an immigration
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                         adjudicator ) or ( b ) do they refer only to remedies
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                               available in respect of acts of the administration
4 April 1995 by the Commission of the European                                    generally ( in casu, an application for judicial
Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal                               review )?
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner ,
                                                                            ( 2 ) If the answer to ( 1 ) is ( a ), do the words quoted from
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                Article 8 of Directive 64/221 refer only to the legal
                                                                                remedies available to nationals of the               State
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      concerned in the same circumstances ( in casu,
                                                                                refusal of entry on grounds of national security), or
 1 , declare that by failing to adopt by law, regulation or                       do they also refer to the specific remedies available
       adminstrative action within the prescribed time limit the                  in analogous or similar circumstances to nationals
       necessary provisions to implement Council Directive                        of the State concerned ; and, if so , how similar or
        92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of                            analogous must the circumstances be ?
       vegetable propagating and planting material, other than
       seed ( 1 ) and Council Directive 92/34/EEC of 28 April
        1992 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating                2 . In the light of the answer to Question 1 , where a
       material and fruit plants intended for fruit                         Community national is refused entry into the United
       production (2 ) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its        Kingdom on grounds of national security does Article 8
       obligations under the EC Treaty;                                     of Directive 64/221/EEC require that national to have a
                                                                            right of appeal to an immigration adjudicator if, on the
2 , order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                           correct construction of the relevant provisions of
                                                                            national law, a British national refused entry to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         United Kingdom on grounds of national security has a
                                                                            right of appeal for the purpose of establishing that he is a
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                 British national and is therefore entitled to enter the
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                      United Kingdom irrespective of whether his presence in
31 December 1992 .                                                          the United Kingdom is undesirable for reasons of
                                                                            national security ?
(') OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 10 .
                                                                        3 . Do the opening words of Article 9 ( 1 ) of Directive
                                                                            64/221 /EEC ('where there is no right of appeal to a court
                                                                            of law, or where such appeal may be only in respect of
                                                                            the legal validity of the decision, or where the appeal
                                                                            cannot have suspensory effect') apply equally to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                     Article 9 ( 2 )?
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
3 February 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex-parte:                  4 . Where a        decision has been taken to exclude a
                       Mann Singh Shingara                                  Community national from the territory of a Member
                           ( Case C-65/95 )                                 State other than his own on public policy or public
                                                                            security grounds and the Community national has left
                              95/C 159/23 )                                 that territory without there having been an appeal or
                                                                            reference for an advisory opinion to an independent
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      competent authority pursuant to Articles 8 or 9 of
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                       Council Directive 64/221 /EEC, does that Community
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 3 February 1995 , which                 national have a right of reference to an independent
was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1995 , for a                 competent authority under Article 9 ( 2 ) if that national


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 9 October 1997 in Case C-291/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Reutlingen): Criminal proceedings against Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir (Preliminary reference - Criminal proceedings - Use of a courtesy title - Discrimination - Relevance of the question - Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
22. 11 . 97            1 EN 1            Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/9
madura, Caceres ( High Court of Justice of the Community                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of Extremadura, Caceres) ( Spain ), for a preliminary ruling                                 ( Second Chamber)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Antonio Naranjo Arjona and Instituto Nacional de la                                          of 9 October 1997
Seguridad Social (INSS ), Francisco Vicente Mateos and              in Case C-291/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS ), Tesoreria        the Amtsgericht Reutlingen): Criminal proceedings against
General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS ), and Instituto                           Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir ( ')
Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS ) and Laura Garcia
Lazaro — on the interpretation of Article 47 ( 1 ) of               (Preliminary reference — Criminal proceedings — Use of
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971               a courtesy title — Discrimination — Relevance of the
on the application of social security schemes to employed                         question — Lack of jurisdiction)
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/16 )
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of
2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ) and as adapted                      (Language of the case: German)
by Annex I, Part VIII, of the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( OJ L 302, 15 . 11 . 1985 , p. 23 ), and subsequently                       published in the European Court Reports)
amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 of
30 April 1992 ( OJ L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992, p. 7) — the Court         In Case C-291 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, acting for the President of the Chamber, D. A. O.          of the EC Treaty from the Amtsgericht ( Local Court ),
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L.            Reutlingen ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the
Sevon, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von              criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, Administrator, for the                  Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir — on the interpretation
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in               of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Second
which it has ruled :                                                Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),
                                                                    President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
                                                                    Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                    has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in which it has
                                                                    ruled :
Article 47 (1 ) (e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/
71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security            The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the question
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons               referred by the Amtsgericht Reutlingen.
and to members of their families moving within the
Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                    (') OJ C 318, 26 . 10 . 1996 .
Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 and as
adapted by Annex I, Part VIII, of the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties,
and which has become Article 47 (1 ) (g) following the
entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92
of 30 April 1992, implies that, in situations such as that at                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
issue in the main proceedings, calculation of the average
basis for contributions rests solely on the amount of                                          ( Fifth Chamber)
contributions actually paid under the legislation                                           of 16 October 1997
concerned, and the theoretical amount of the benefit thus
obtained is to be duly revalorized and increased as if the          in Case C-258/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
persons concerned had continued to work under the same              the Bundesfinanzhof): Julius Fillibeck Sohne GmbH &c Co.
conditions in the Member State in question. However,                                KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt (*)
where application of that provision so interpreted proves           (Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of services for
less advantageous, for workers who were already                     consideration — Definition — Transport of workers by
employed in another Member State before the regulation                                            the employer)
entered into force in the first Member State, than the
application of a previous convention between those two                                           ( 97/C 357/ 17 )
States, the competent court should, by way of exception,
apply the rules laid down by that convention.                                      (Language of the case: German)
(') OJ C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-258/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Lille (Fourth Chamber) by judgment of that court of 19 November 1998 in the case of Clinique Grégoire SA v Direction Régionale des Impôts de Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Case C-474/98)

text:
C 71/12               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               13.3.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i          Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
Stockholm by order of that court of 17 December 1998 in           of the European Communities against the Republic of
   the case of Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB                                        Austria
                       (Case C-473/98)                                                   (Case C-475/98)
                        (1999/C 71/19)                                                    (1999/C 71/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of Kammarrätten i                   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
Stockholm of 17 December 1998, received at the Court              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Registry on 21 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in         on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
the case of Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB on            European Communities, represented by Jörn Sack and
the following question:                                           Frank Benyon, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                  Gómez de la Cruz, of the European Commission's Legal
Having regard to its aim, is a prohibition against the            Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
commercial use of trichloroethylene as described above a
measure which is compatible with Article 36 of the EC
Treaty and its application in Community law, even if it
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
contravenes Article 30 of the Treaty?
                                                                  1. Declare that, by having in 1995 individually
                                                                      negotiated, signed and entered into an Open Skies'
                                                                      agreement with the USA in the air-transport sector, the
                                                                      Republic of Austria acted in breach of its obligations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                    under the EC Treaty, including Articles 5 and 52
Administratif de Lille (Fourth Chamber) by judgment of                thereof, and also contrary to the secondary law
that court of 19 November 1998 in the case of Clinique                adopted thereunder, in particular Council Regulation
GreÂgoire SA v Direction ReÂgionale des Impôts de                     (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on licensing of
                     Nord-Pas-de-Calais                               air carriers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)
                                                                      of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers
                       (Case C-474/98)                                to intra-Community routes, Council Regulation (EEC)
                        (1999/C 71/20)                                No 2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for
                                                                      air services, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2)
                                                                      of 24 July 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
                                                                      No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                conduct for computerised reservation systems, and
European Communities by a judgment of the Fourth                      Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of 18 January
Chamber of the Tribunal Administratif (Administrative                 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at
Court), Lille, of 19 November 1998, which was received                Community airports;
at the Court Registry on 21 December 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Clinique GreÂgoire SA v
Direction ReÂgionale des Impôts de Nord-Pas-de-Calais, on
the following question:                                           2. In the alternative to part of the claim under (1),
                                                                      declare that:
Since they are regarded as reserving the exemption from
value added tax to transactions involving total human
                                                                      In so far as the 1995 agreement cannot be regarded as
blood, are the provisions of Article 261 of the General
Tax Code compatible with the objectives laid down in                  having radically amended and thus replaced
Article 13(A)(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive                    agreements previously concluded, the Republic of
77/388/EEC (1) which provides that ¼ Member States                   Austria failed to comply with its obligations under
shall exempt the following under conditions which they                Article 234 of the EC Treaty, as amended by Article 6
                                                                      of the Act of Accession, by not rescinding the
shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and
straightforward application of such exemptions . . . (d)              provisions contained in that agreement which are
supplies of human . . . blood', which must be understood              incompatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
                                                                      Article 52, and with the secondary law adopted
as including both total human blood and the components
thereof used separately and secondary products thereof?               thereunder, or by failing to take all legally possible
                                                                      steps to that end;
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                  3. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
                                                                      present proceedings.


title: Case C-8/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/46/EC — Annual accounts and consolidated accounts of companies — Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-8/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/46/EC - Annual accounts and consolidated accounts of companies - Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 246/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2000 in Case C-37/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England & Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdulnasir Savas (EEC-Turkey Association — Restrictions on freedom of establishment and right of residence — Article 13 of the Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional Protocol — Direct effect — Scope — Turkish national unlawfully present in the host Member State)

text:
C 211/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           22.7.2000
obligations under that directive; the Court (First Chamber),              other, by the Member States of the EEC and the Community,
composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,            and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the
P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General: M.P. Léger;            Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December
Registrar: M.R. Grass, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000,             1963 (OJ 1973 C 133, p. 1) and of Article 41 of the Additional
in which it:                                                              Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and con-
                                                                          cluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and           by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December
     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with            1972 (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 17), — the Court, composed of:
     Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
     Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases,       acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
     the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its               G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges, A. La Pergola,
     obligations under that directive;                                    Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          has given a judgment on 11 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                          — Article 13 of the Agreement establishing an Association between
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                                   the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at
                                                                              Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of
                                                                              the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the
                                                                              Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and
                                                                              confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision
                                                                              64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 and Article 41(2) of the
                                                                              Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970
                                                                              and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the
                                                                              Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       19 December 1972 do not constitute rules of Community law
                                                                              that are directly applicable in the internal legal order of Member
                                                                              States.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 11 May 2000                                  — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol has direct effect in
                                                                              Member States.
in Case C-37/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of
England & Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the                  — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol is not in itself capable
       Home Department ex parte Abdulnasir Savas (1)                          of conferring upon a Turkish national a right of establishment
                                                                              and, as a corollary, a right of residence in the Member State in
                                                                              whose territory he has remained and carried on business activities
(EEC-Turkey Association — Restrictions on freedom of                          as a self-employed person in breach of the domestic immigration
establishment and right of residence — Article 13 of the                      law.
Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional
Protocol — Direct effect — Scope — Turkish national
         unlawfully present in the host Member State)
                                                                          — However, Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol prohibits the
                                                                              introduction of new national restrictions on the freedom of
                         (2000/C 211/03)                                      establishment and right of residence of Turkish nationals as from
                                                                              the date on which that protocol entered into force in the host
                                                                              Member State. It is for the national court to interpret domestic
                    (Language of the case: English)                           law for the purposes of determining whether the rules applied to
                                                                              the applicant in the main proceedings are less favourable than
                                                                              those which were applicable at the time when the Additional
                                                                              Protocol entered into force.
In Case C-37/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Queen’s Bench
Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales                (1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between The Queen and Secretary
of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir
Savas on the interpretation of Article 13 of the Agreement
establishing an Association between the European Economic
Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on 12 September
1963, on the one hand, by the Republic of Turkey and, on the


title: Case C-161/16: Order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda Tingsrätt — Sweden) — Airhelp Ltd v Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/20

      Order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda Tingsrätt — Sweden) — Airhelp Ltd v Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S
      (Case C-161/16) (1)

      (2016/C 454/37)
      Language of the case: Swedish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case C-60/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, Dublin, by order of that court of 15 July 1998, in the case of Carmen Proetta against Andrew Neil

text:
1.5.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 121/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
Dublin, by order of that court of 15 July 1998, in the case             Mainz by order of that court of 22 January 1999 in the
           of Carmen Proetta against Andrew Neil                        case of Deutsche Post AG against Landal Green Parks
                                                                                GmbH
                         (Case C-60/99)                                                            (Case C-61/99)
                        (1999/C 121/20)                                                           (1999/C 121/21)
                                                                        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 order of the Landgericht Mainz
European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,                  (Regional Court, Mainz) of 22 January 1999, received at the
Dublin, of 15 July 1998, which was received at the Court                Court Registry on 22 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling
Registry on 22 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the           in the case of Deutsche Post AG against Landal Green Parks
case of Carmen Proetta against Andrew Neil, on the following            GmbH on the following questions:
questions:
                                                                        1. Are Articles 59 et seq., 52 et seq. and 30 et seq. of the EC
1. Is the right of a citizen of the European Community to his               Treaty to be interpreted as allowing an undertaking within
    or her good name a fundamental right guaranteed by                      the European Union to conduct advertising centrally from
    Community law?                                                          the parent company in Member State A for a subsidiary in
                                                                            Member State B, where the parent company organises the
                                                                            advertising, pays for it and, using the postal administration
                                                                            of Member State A to despatch the advertising material,
2. Is an action for alleged libel taken by a national of one                sends it to the consumer being approached, so that the
    Member State against a national of a second Member State                exercise of the power of the postal administration of
    in the courts of a third Member State, where the alleged                Member state B to demand internal charges for the delivery
    libel was alleged to have been published, a matter within               of the letters — at any rate if the advertising mail, as
    the scope of application of the EC Treaty and, in particular,           indicated by its content and the fact that it refers almost
    of Article 6 thereof?                                                   entirely only to the subsidiary in Member State B, is sent
                                                                            on behalf of that subsidiary, which the advertising is also
                                                                            intended to benefit directly — amounts to a penalty or
3. Is the right of a national of a member State to sue a                    discrimination and thus infringes the freedom to provide
    national of another Member State in a third Member State                services, the free movement of goods (if the moveable
    for a tort, in this instance the tort of libel, pursuant to             property element of the service is predominant) and
    Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention, a Community law                freedom of establishment?
    right?
                                                                            Does that also hold true if the reason for that practice of
                                                                            the undertaking is solely or partly to make savings on
                                                                            postal charges inasmuch as the rates of charge in Member
4. Where a civil action is brought before the courts of a                   State A, in which the parent company has its registered
    member State pursuant to the provisions of the Brussels                 office and from where it conducts all the undertaking’s
    Convention, does Article 6 of the EC Treaty preclude the                advertising, are slightly or significantly lower than those of
    courts of that Member State from requiring a national of                Member State B, in which the subsidiary primarily intended
    another Member State resident outside the jurisdiction of               to benefit financially from the advertising operates?
    the courts of the Member State in question to lodge
    security for the costs of the proceedings when no such
    requirement could be imposed upon an individual resident            2. Is Article 90 (1) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
    within the jurisdiction of the said Member State?                       meaning that a law ratifying the Universal Postal Union
                                                                            Convention of 14 December 1989 infringes the prohib-
                                                                            ition of abuse in subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the second
5. Where a civil action, not otherwise connected with a                     paragraph of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, as a measure by
    Community law right, is brought the courts of a Member                  a Member state falling outside Article 90 (2) of that Treaty,
    State pursuant to the previsions of the Brussels Convention,            in so far as it confers on the postal administration of
    does Article 6 of the EC Treaty preclude the courts of that             Member State B the right to impose internal postal charges,
    Member State from requiring a national of another Member                giving credit for the postal charges already paid in Member
    State resident outside the jurisdiction of the courts of the            State A, in respect of the delivery of letter-post items which
    Member State in question to lodge security for the costs of             were posted in Member State A, when the originator of the
    the proceedings when no such requirement could be                       letters, intellectually and substantively, is an undertaking in
    imposed upon an individual resident within the jurisdiction             Member State A but their content and the overall
    of the said Member State.                                               impression of the advertising mail together indicate to the
                                                                            recipient that they are sent solely by the undertaking in
                                                                            Member State B which is being advertised?


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-268/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar): Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben eG, v Freistaat Thüringen, (Milk and milk products — Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Scheme applicable to the territory of the former German Democratic Republic — Reference quantities — Concepts of "producer" and "holding" — Lessee of a holding situated within that territory)

text:
C 146/10                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                21.6.2003
—     precluding the application of national legislation which excludes                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force
      of the host Member State from eligibility for election to the
      general assembly of a body representing and defending the                                         (Second Chamber)
      interests of workers, such as the chambers of workers in Austria.
                                                                                of 8 May 2003
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                              in Case C-268/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar): Agrargenossenschaft
                                                                                Alkersleben eG, v Freistaat Thüringen, ( 1)
                                                                              (Milk and milk products — Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                              No 3950/92 — Scheme applicable to the territory of the
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      former German Democratic Republic — Reference quantities
                                                                              — Concepts of ‘producer’ and ‘holding’ — Lessee of a
                                                                                holding situated within that territory)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/17)
                           of 10 April 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-217/01 P: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen
pour le développement de la formation professionnelle
                              (Cedefop) ( 1)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Officials — Resettlement Allowance — Action
which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudi-
                                  cate)
                                                                              In Case C-268/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                              by the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar (Germany) for a prelimi-
                            (2003/C 146/16)                                   nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                              between Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben eG, and Freistaat
                      (Language of the case: French)                          Thüringen, on the interpretation of Articles 3(2), 4(4), 5 and
                                                                              9(c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
                                                                              28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), as amended
                     in the European Court Reports)                           by Commission Regulation (EC) No 751/1999 of 9 April 1999
                                                                              (OJ 1999 L 96, p. 11), the Court (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                              of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris
                                                                              (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
In Case C-217/01 P, Michel Hendrickx (represented by                          General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere): Appeal against the order of the Court              2003, in which it has ruled:
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)
of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 Hendrickx v Cedefop
(not published in the ECR), seeking to have that order set aside,             1.    Article 9(c) and (d) of Council Regulation No 3950/92 of
the other party to the proceedings being: Centre européen pour                      28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the
le développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop)                          milk and milk products sector, as amended by Commission
(represented by B. Wägenbaur), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                           Regulation (EC) No 751/1999 of 9 April 1999 and read
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                            with Articles 3(2), 4(4) and 5 of the former regulation, must
C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and                                 be interpreted as meaning that all the milk production of a
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;                         farmer established in the territory of the former German
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in                      Democratic Republic obtained on an independent basis in
which it:                                                                           leased facilities situated in that territory but in different länder
                                                                                must be imputed to the reference quantity provisionally allocated
                                                                                to him.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              2.    Article 9(c) and (d) of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended
2.    Orders Mr Hendrickx to pay the costs.                                         by Regulation No 751/99, and read with Articles 3(2), 4(4)
                                                                                and 5 of the former regulation, must be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                the competent national authorities from prohibiting a producer
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                established in the former German Democratic Republic from
                                                                                transferring his milk production to facilities in a commune
                                                                                which, although forming part of that territory on the date of
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 146/11
      reunification of Germany, is henceforth incorporated in one of                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      the pre-existing länder of the Federal Republic of Germany
      under a treaty concluded after that date.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
                                                                                of 8 May 2003
                                                                               in Case C-384/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                     Directive — Article 12(3)(a) and (b) — Supplies of gas and
                                                                               electricity delivered by the public networks — Standing
                           of 3 April 2003                                               charge for supply networks — Reduced rate)
in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio Samp-
                                  er (1)                                                                 (2003/C 146/19)
(Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Con-
                 sideration of comparative merits)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                           (2003/C 146/18)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               In Case C-384/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               (Agents: E. Traversa and C. Giolito) v French Republic (Agents:
                                                                               G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque): Application for a declar-
In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                               ation that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the
Hertzen and D. Moore): Appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                               fixed part of the prices for gas and electricity supplied by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                               public networks, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament
                                                                               obligations under Article 12(3)(a) and (b) of Sixth Council
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that
                                                                               Directive 77/388/EC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
                                                                               of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Ignacio Samper employee of the European Parliament, resident
                                                                               Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
in Madrid (Spain), (represented by E. Boigelot), the Court
                                                                               ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
                                                                               96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 amending, with regard to the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
                                                                               level of the standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/388/
S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                               EEC (OJ 1996 L 338, p. 89), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April
                                                                               composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
                                                                               A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May              Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:
      2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament;
2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give       1.    Dismisses the application;
      judgment on the claims by Mr Samper for annulment of
      the decision of the European Parliament of 9 June 1999
      reconstructing his career, in so far as it sets at 1 January 1998        2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the date for his promotion to Grade A 4 to take effect;                        the costs.
3.    Reserves the costs.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case T-617/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/43

         Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD)
   (Case T-617/15)
   (2016/C 016/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Chic Investments sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: K. Jarosiński, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘eSMOKINGWORLD’ — Application for registration No 12 581 741

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2015 in Case R 3227/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 June 2015;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.