title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 April 1996 in Case C-194/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Liège): CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL (Interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and of Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - National legislation on the marketing of alarm systems and networks - Prior administrative approval)

text:
6 . 7 . 96                                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 197/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  3 . Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a national
                        of 30 April 1996                                   provision such as Article 4 of the Law of 10 April
                                                                           1990.
in Case C-194/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce de Liège ): CIA Security                     (!) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994.
  International SA v . Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL ( 1 )
(Interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and of
Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the
provision ofinformation in the field of technical standards
and regulations — National legislation on the marketing of                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
alarm systems and networks — Prior administrative
                             approval)                                                       of 30 April 1996
                          ( 96/C 197/05 )                             in Case C-214/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Ingrid Boukhalfa v.
                                                                                Bundesrepublik Deutschland ( 1 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       (National of a Member State established in a non-member
                                                                      country — Employed on the local staff of the embassy of
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be          another Member State in that non-member country —
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Treated differently from local staffhaving the nationality of
                                                                      the Member State whose embassy is involved —
                                                                      Applicability of Community law — Prohibition of
In Case C-194/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                        discrimination based on nationality)
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce de Liège
                                                                                ( 961 C 197/06 )
( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between CIA Security
International SA and Signalson SA, Securitel SPRL on the                             (Language of the case: German)
interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and of Council
Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
procedure for the provision of information in the field of                     published in the European Court Reports)
technical standards and regulations ( OJ L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 ),
as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March                In Case C-214/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 1988 ( OJ L 81 , 1988 , p . 75 ), the Court, composed of G. C.       of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.              Labour Court), Federal Republic of Germany, for a
Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Presidents of Chamber, G. F.            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.             court between Ingrid Boukhalfa and Bundesrepublik
Gulmann ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L.              Deutschland on the interpretation of Article 48 (2 ) of the EC
 Sevôn, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General, D.                     Treaty and Article 7 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of Regulation (EEC)
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator for the                    Nol612/68of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom
 Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 April 1996 , the operative          of movement for workers within the Community ( OJ,
 part of which is as follows :                                        English Special Edition, 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court,
                                                                      composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
                                                                       Kakouris (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
 1 . a rule such as Article 4 of the Belgian Law of 10 April           (Presidents   of Chambers ),       G.    F. Mancini,   F.   A.
      1990 on caretaking firms, security firms and internal            Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, P.
      caretaking services does not constitute a technical             Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger,
      regulation within the meaning of Council Directive               Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
      83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                        the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 April 1996, the
      procedure for the provision ofinformation in the field of        operative part of which is as follows :
      technical standards and regulations, as amended by
       Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988,                  the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality, laid
      whereas provisions such as those contained in the                down in Article 48 (2) ofthe EC Treaty and Article 7 (1 ) and
      Belgian Royal Decree of 14 May 1991 laying down the              (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
      procedure for approval of the alarm systems and                  1 5 October 1 968 on freedom of movement for workers
       networks referred to in the Law of 10 April 1990 do             within the Community, applies to a national of a Member
       constitute technical regulations and classification of a        State who is permanently resident in a non-member country,
       rule such as Article 12 of the Law of 10 April 1990             who is employed by another Member State in its embassy in
       depends on the legal effects which it has under domestic        that non-member country and whose contract of
       law;                                                            employment was entered into and is permanently performed
                                                                       there, as regards all aspects of the employment relationship
 2. Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 83/189, as amended by                which are governed by the legislation of the employing
       Directive 88/1 82, are to be interpreted as meaning that        Member State.
       individuals may rely on them before the national court
       which must decline to apply a national technical                 (M OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
       regulation which has not been notified in accordance
       with the directive:


title: Case C-511/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2008 — Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. v Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2008 — Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. v Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH
   (Case C-511/08)
   (2009/C 32/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.

      Defendant: Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH
   Question referred
   Are the provisions of Article 6(1), sentence 2, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the costs of delivering the goods to be charged to the consumer even where he has withdrawn from the contract?

      (1)  OJ L 144, p. 19.


title: Case C-279/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, Spain) — CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA v LV Tobar e Hijos SL (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Article 81 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Articles 10 to 13 — Regulation No 2790/1999 — Article 4(a) — Exclusive supply contract for petroleum products between a service-station operator and an oil company — Exemption)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, Spain) — CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA v LV Tobar e Hijos SL
   (Case C-279/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Article 81 EC - Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 - Articles 10 to 13 - Regulation No 2790/1999 - Article 4(a) - Exclusive supply contract for petroleum products between a service-station operator and an oil company - Exemption)
   (2008/C 285/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Audiencia Provincial de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA

      Defendant: LV Tobar e Hijos SL
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Madrid — Interpretation of Article 81(1) EC and Articles 10 to 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) — Exclusive distribution contracts for fuels classified as agency or commission contracts but having certain specific features
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               An exclusive supply contract for motor-vehicle and other fuels, as well as lubricants and other related products, is capable of falling within the scope of Article 81(1) EC where the service station operator assumes, in a non-negligible proportion, one or more financial and commercial risks linked to the sale of those products to third parties and where that contract contains clauses capable of infringing competition, such as that relating to the fixing of the retail price. If the service-station operator does not assume such risks or assumes only a negligible share of them, only the obligations imposed on the operator in the context of services as an intermediary offered by the operator to the principal, such as the exclusivity and non-competition clauses, are capable of falling within the scope of that provision. It is for the referring court to ascertain, moreover, whether the contract concluded on 7 February 1996 between CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA and LV Tobar e Hijos SL has the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

               2)

               An exclusive supply contract, such as that referred to in the preceding paragraph of this operative part, is capable of benefiting from a block exemption provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997, if it complies with the maximum duration of 10 years referred to in Article 12(1)(c) of that regulation and if the supplier grants the service-station operator, in return for exclusivity, substantial commercial advantages which contribute to an improvement in distribution, facilitate the establishment or modernisation of the service station and lower the distribution costs. It is for the referring court to assess whether those conditions are satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.

               3)

               Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation No 1984/83, as amended by Regulation No 1582/97, must be interpreted as precluding the application of the block exemption to an exclusive supply contract which provides for the fixing of the retail price by the supplier. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether, under national law, the contractual clause relating to that sale price can be amended by unilateral authorisation of the supplier, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and whether a contract which is automatically void may become valid following an amendment of that contractual clause which has the effect of bringing that clause into line with Article 81(1) EC.

               4)

               The automatic nullity provided for in Article 81(2) EC affects a contract in its entirety only if the clauses which are incompatible with Article 81(1) EC are not severable from the contract itself. Otherwise, the consequences of the nullity, in respect of all the other parts of the contract, are not a matter for Community law.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-37/03 P: Appeal brought on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, in judicial liquidation, against the judgment delivered on 5 December 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-91/01 between BioID AG, in judicial liquidation, and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 70/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          22.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        3.    order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the
                                                                             proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period          Pleas and main arguments
expired on 10 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to          —     Incorrect, overly broad interpretation of the absolute
in the conclusions of the Commission.                                        ground for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b) of Council
                                                                             Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark:
                                                                             from the point of view of the average consumer, the
( 1) OJ L 175, 10.07.1999, p. 43.                                            mark applied for serves to identify the goods and services
                                                                             in respect of which registration is sought as originating
                                                                             from the appellant and, accordingly, to distinguish those
                                                                             goods and services from those of other undertakings.
                                                                             Considered as a whole, the sign consisting of a word
                                                                             element and additional graphic elements undoubtedly
                                                                             performs the function of providing a guarantee that all
                                                                             the goods or services bearing it have originated under the
                                                                             control of a single undertaking which is responsible for
                                                                             their quality.
Appeal brought on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, in
                                                                       —     Had the Court of First Instance correctly interpreted the
judicial liquidation, against the judgment delivered on
                                                                             absolute ground for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b), it
5 December 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                             would have had to examine the further plea alleging
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                             infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and to reach the con-
T-91/01 between BioID AG, in judicial liquidation, and                       clusion, on the basis of its findings of fact, that the mark
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             applied for was also not caught by the absolute ground
                   (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             for refusal set out therein which applies where the signs
                                                                             or indications of which a mark consists are of an
                                                                             exclusively descriptive nature. In that regard, the Court of
                        (Case C-37/03 P)                                     Justice may, since the state of the proceedings so permits,
                                                                             give final judgment as provided by Article 54 of the
                                                                             Statute of the Court.
                         (2003/C 70/23)
                                                                       (1 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                            Communities.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 December
2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-91/01 between BioID
AG, in judicial liquidation, and the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, in judicial liquidation,
represented by Dr Axel Nordemann, Rechtsanwalt, Boehmert               Action brought on 3 February 2003 by the Commission
& Boehmert, Meinekestr. 26, D-10719 Berlin, with an address            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
for service in Luxembourg.                                                                          Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-38/03)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 70/24)
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      5 December 2002 in Case T-91/01 BioID AG v Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) ( 1);
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
2.    annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade           on 3 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
      Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001 in Appeal                 Communities, represented by L. Ström F. Simonetti, acting as
      R 538/1999-2;                                                    Agents.


title: Case T-115/08: Action brought on 10 March 2008 — Gourmet Burger Kitchen v OHIM (GOURMET BURGER KITCHEN)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/42

         Action brought on 10 March 2008 — Gourmet Burger Kitchen v OHIM (GOURMET BURGER KITCHEN)
   (Case T-115/08)
   (2008/C 107/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Gourmet Burger Kitchen Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by C. Sawdy, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 December 2007 in case R 1215/2007-2; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A word mark consisting of the words GOURMET BURGER KITCHEN for various goods and services in classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 43 — application No 4 615 341

      Decision of the examiner: Partial refusal of the application for services in class 43

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark has acquired distinctiveness through use in the United Kingdom and Ireland.


title: Case C-554/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 27 October 2015 — Lucas Jerónimo García Almodovar and Catalina Molina Moreno v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U.

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 27 October 2015 — Lucas Jerónimo García Almodovar and Catalina Molina Moreno v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U.
   (Case C-554/15)
   (2016/C 027/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Lucas Jerónimo García Almodovar and Catalina Molina Moreno

      Respondent: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the limiting of the retroactive effects of the nullity, on grounds of unfairness, of a ‘floor clause’ inserted in a consumer contract compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer and with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               2.

               Is the maintaining of the effects produced by a ‘floor clause’ declared void because unfair, inserted in a consumer contract, compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13]?

               3.

               Is the limitation of the retroactive effects of the nullity on grounds of unfairness of a ‘floor clause’ inserted in a consumer contract because of a finding that there is a risk of serious difficulties with implications for the economic public order and because of good faith compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13]?

               4.

               If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, when the consumer against whom enforcement is sought lodges an objection to mortgage enforcement proceedings on the grounds of the unfairness of a contractual term inserted in the consumer contract which forms the basis of the enforcement proceedings or which determined the amount payable, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13] for it to be assumed that there is a risk of serious difficulties for the economic public order, or must that risk be assessed and evaluated in the light of the specific economic data from which it is inferred that granting retroactive effects to a ruling that an unfair term is null and void has macro-economic consequences?

               5.

               In turn, when the consumer against whom enforcement is sought lodges an objection to mortgage enforcement proceedings on the grounds of the unfairness of a contractual term inserted in the consumer contract which forms the basis of the enforcement proceedings or which determined the amount payable, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13] for the risk of serious difficulties for the economic public order to be assessed in the light of the economic effects that might be engendered by the potential bringing of an individual action or lodging of an objection to enforcement by a large number of consumers on the grounds that the clause is unfair, or, on the contrary, must that risk to be assessed in the light of the financial effect on the economy of the specific objection to enforcement brought by the consumer against whom enforcement is sought?

               6.

               If the reply to the third question is in the affirmative, is abstract evaluation of the conduct of any seller or supplier for the purposes of assessing good faith compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13]?

               7.

               Or, on the contrary, on construing Article 6 of Directive [93/13], must that good faith be examined and evaluated in every specific case, in the light of the specific conduct of the seller or supplier when concluding the contract and inserting the unfair term in the contract?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-367/10: Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia e.a. v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/34

         Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-367/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece), Chrisderic (St Cyprien, France), André Sébastien Fortassier (Grau D’Agde, France) (represented by: V. Akritidis and E. Petritsi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 498/2010 of 9 June 2010 prohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece or registered in France or Greece, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (1);

               —

               order that all the costs occasioned by the applicants in the course of the present proceedings be borne by the Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the application, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, it claims that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination laid down in Article 18 TFUE that prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality and in Article 40(2) TFUE that prohibits discrimination between producers or consumers in the agricultural sector as well as in breach of the general principle of European Union law within the meaning of Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   In this regard, the applicant states that the Commission has discriminated on two grounds. First, it has prohibited further fishing activities of Greece, France and Spain (2) prior to the end of the fishing period, whilst, however, the exhaustion of the Greek quota was way lower than that of Spain. Second, whilst the Commission had informed all three EU Member States that the fishing activities would be terminated, it published two different binding termination regulations, one for Greece and France and a second one for Spain, effectively allowing the Spanish fleet to continue fishing until the end of the fishing period. The applicant claims that to its knowledge there was no objective reason justifying such different treatment.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the general principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TFUE and Protocol No 2 annexed to the Treaty and recognised in a settled case law as a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual. In the applicant’s view, the Commission could have adopted more proportionate measure to ensure the compliance by EU Member States with the regime of Regulation (EC) Nr 1224/2009 (3) and prohibited fishing of live bleufin tuna when national quotas would have reached a more critical level, close to 100 %. It could have also prohibited such activity on the same date for all EU Member States concerned.
   Third, the applicant claims that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the general principle of good and proper administration and/or duty of care as defined by established case law and foreseen in article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 142, p. 1

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 508/2010 of 14 June 2010 prohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic ocean, east of longitude of 45° W, and in the Mediterranean sea (OJ 2010 L 149, p. 7).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1


title: Case T-234/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen (Meissen)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/46

         Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen (Meissen)
   (Case T-234/16)
   (2016/C 243/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meißen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Meissen’ — EU trade mark No 3 743 663

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2016 in Cases R 2620/2014-4 and R 2622/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it finds against the applicant, that is to say in so far as the appeal lodged by the applicant for a declaration of revocation and applicant in the present proceedings was dismissed and in so far as, in addition, owing to the appeal filed by the proprietor of the trade mark, the contested decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the application for cancellation was also rejected in that respect;

               —

               in so far as the Court regards itself as authorised to make an alteration: declare EU trade mark No 3 743 663 to be revoked in its entirety — in the alternative or incidentally: refer the case back to EUIPO;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-270/02: Action brought on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 219/8                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Action brought on 23 July 2002 by the Commission of                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
  the European Communities against the French Republic                     represented by C. Durand and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                            (Case C-269/02)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (2002/C 219/13)
                                                                           —     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation which
                                                                                subjects the marketing of food products for sportsmen
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                     lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July                          States to a requirement of applying for prior authorisation
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                              and of completion of the relevant procedure without
represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for                   having demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of
service in Luxembourg.                                                           such a requirement, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
—      Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
       within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the
       protection of the health and safety of workers from the
       risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth                Pleas in law and main arguments
       individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1)
       of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the French Republic has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
—      Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Rules which subject the entry of a foodstuff onto a national
                                                                           market to completion of a prior authorisation procedure
                                                                           clearly represent an obstacle to the free movement of that
                                                                           product, which may nevertheless be justified if it appears that
                                                                           its marketing poses a potential risk to human health. In that
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            case, in the absence of rules of harmonisation at Community
                                                                           level, the Member States are empowered to fix the level at
                                                                           which they intend to ensure the protection of the health
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 5 May                   of consumers, which may justify a requirement of prior
2001.                                                                      authorisation for the entry of goods to the market, to the
                                                                           extent strictly necessary for the attainment of the safeguard
                                                                           objectives pursued.
( 1) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.
                                                                           In the circumstances of the present case the Italian Government
                                                                           has not demonstrated the necessity of the authorisation
                                                                           procedure prior to the entry onto the market of the products
                                                                           in question, which are lawfully manufactured and marketed in
                                                                           other Member States. From the information provided to the
                                                                           Commission that procedure seems to amount merely to
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   checking the veracity of the statements on the label with
                                                                           respect to the effects which consumption of the products in
                                                                           question may have on athletes’ diets. In those circumstances
                            (Case C-270/02)                                the authorisation procedure therefore appears rather to pursue,
                                                                           not the objective of protecting health, but rather that of
                                                                           adequately informing the consumer, an objective which, in the
                            (2002/C 219/14)                                Commission’s opinion, may easily be attained by means less
                                                                           restrictive of trade than an authorisation procedure.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July


title: Case T-95/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2014 — Stols v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2007 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the interested party to grade AST 11 — Comparison of merits — Review by the court of the manifest error of assessment)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2014 — Stols v Council
   (Case T-95/12) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2007 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the interested party to grade AST 11 - Comparison of merits - Review by the court of the manifest error of assessment)
   2014/C 52/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) on 13 December 2011 in Case F-51/08 RENV, not yet published, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Willem Stols to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the context the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case C-370/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Solvay Solutions España, S.L. v Administración del Estado

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Solvay Solutions España, S.L. v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-370/15)
   (2015/C 311/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Solvay Solutions España, S.L.

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU (1) contrary to the provisions of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2) in so far as the correction factor has been established by a mechanism which, in infringement of the obligation to state reasons, does not enable the operators of installations concerned to be informed of the data, calculations and criteria taken into account for its adoption?

               2.

               By defining and fixing as it does the cap for industrial emissions and the cross-sectoral correction factor provided for in Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (3) and Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU (4), does Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of that Directive because it has not been drawn up in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny governed by Decision 1999/468/EC (5).

               3.

               Having regard to the fact that Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU create a discrepancy between:

                           —

                           the calculation basis governed by Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) of Directive 2003/87/EC, by not including in those bases emissions from electricity production related to the combustion of waste gases and from the cogeneration of heat which occur in installations included in Annex I to that Directive, and

                           —

                           the criteria laid down by Article 10a(1) and (4) of the Directive for the free allocation of emission allowances, which does include that type of emissions:

                                       a)

                                       Do Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a(5), in conjunction with Article 3(u) and the third subparagraph in fine of the aforementioned Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC in that they consider that emissions produced by combustion of waste gases or by the generation of heat in installations which produce electricity and are included in Annex I to that Directive are in any event emissions from ‘electricity generators’ for the purpose of determining the industrial emissions cap, and must therefore be excluded from the calculation?

                                       b)

                                       Even if the reply to the previous question is in the negative, do Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC and/or the objectives of that Directive insofar as they exclude from the basis of calculation of the industrial emissions cap governed by that provision emissions from electricity production from waste gases and from the cogeneration of heat, produced in installations included in Annex I to the aforementioned Directive, to which, however, emission allowances may be allocated free of charge under Article 10a(1) to (4) of the Directive?

               4.

               Are Commission Decision 2013/448/EU and, where appropriate, Decision 2011/278/EU, which it implements, contrary to Article 10a(12) of the Directive, because they extend the cross-sectoral correction factor to sectors defined in Commission Decision 2010/2/EU (6) (now Decision 2014/746/EU) (7) as they are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, with the consequent reduction in free emission allowances allocated?

               5.

               Does Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EEC in so far as the European Commission, in order to determine the verified emissions carried out in the period 2005-2007 to which Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) refers:

                           a)

                           did not take into consideration emissions which were not included in the Community independent transaction log, even though, in the period under consideration, it was not obligatory to register such emissions.

                           b)

                           extrapolated, to the extent possible, the relevant emission figures from verified emissions in later years by applying the factor of 1,74 % in reverse direction.

                           c)

                           excluded all emissions from installations closed before 30 June 2011.

      (1)  2013/448/EU: Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (3)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (4)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      (5)  1999/468/EC: Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).

      (6)  2010/2/EU: Commission Decision of 24 December 2009 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage (OJ 2010 L 1, p. 10).

      (7)  OJ 2014 L 308, p. 114.


title: Case C-205/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Longwy by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in Fabien Nemec v Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du Nord-Est

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Longwy by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in Fabien Nemec v Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du Nord-Est
   (Case C-205/05)
   (2005/C 182/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Longwy (Social Security Tribunal, Longwy) of 14 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 11 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Fabien Nemec and Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du Nord-Est (Regional Health Insurance Fund of the North East) on the following question:
   In refusing to take the pay earned by Mr Nemec in Belgium into account when calculating the amount of the allowance for asbestos workers awarded to him pursuant to Article 41 of Law No 98-1194 of 23 December 1998, on the basis of Article 2 of the Decree implementing Law No 99-247 of 29 March 1999 and Circular 2SS/4B/99 No 332 of 9 June 1999, because that pay did not give rise to the payment of social security contributions in accordance with Article L 242-1 of the French Social Security Code, did the C.R.A.M. take, in his regard, a wrongful decision constituting an impediment to freedom of movement as laid down in Article 39 EC, an infringement of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) or an infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (2)?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 159).


title: Case C-110/17: Action brought on 3 March 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/19

         Action brought on 3 March 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-110/17)
   (2017/C 121/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and N. Gossement, Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by retaining provisions under which, in respect of the estimation of income relating to unrented buildings or buildings rented either to natural persons who do not use them for professional purposes, or to legal persons who make such buildings available to natural persons for private purposes, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the cadastral value so far as property on national territory is concerned, and on the actual rental value so far as buildings located abroad are concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the EEA.
   While noting the attempts made by Belgium to bring its failure to fulfil obligations to an end, the Commission takes the view that the existence of the failure to fulfil obligations on 26 March 2012, the date when the period of two months laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, has been proven.


title: Case T-331/13: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Nikolaou v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment — Cyprus stability support programme — Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus — Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/24

         Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Nikolaou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-331/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Cyprus stability support programme - Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 448/32)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Marinos Nikolaou (Strovolos, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, acting as Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the declaration of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Marinos Nikolaou is ordered to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case T-300/17: Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/44

         Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000)
   (Case T-300/17)
   (2017/C 231/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘3000’ — EU trade mark No 12 511 119

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 653/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.


title: Case F-73/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2008 — Doktor v Council (Staff cases — Officials — Recruitment — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2008 — Doktor v Council
   (Case F-73/07)
   (Staff cases - Officials - Recruitment - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period)
   (2008/C 158/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Frantisek Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, R. Albelice and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the Council's Appointing Authority of October 2006 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probationary period and, secondly, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.


title: Case C-387/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duty-free imports of dual-use material for civil and military use)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-387/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of dual-use material for civil and military use)
   2010/C 51/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg, Agent) Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, A. Samoni-Rantou and K. Boskovits, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: C. Guerra Santos, L. Inez Fernandes and J. Gomes, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 26 EC and various provisions of the customs legislation (Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), Articles 2, 9, 10 and 17(1) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1)) and the corresponding provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Duty free imports of material for military and civilian use — Refusal to calculate the amounts which ought to have been levied and made available as the Communities’ own resources

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by exempting imports of material capable of use both for civil and military purposes from customs duties during the period from 1 January 1999 until 31 December 2002 and by refusing to calculate, declare and make available to the European Commission the own resources which were not collected because of that exemption and the default interest payable because of the failure to make those own resources available to the European Commission in good time, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under, on the one hand, Article 26 EC, Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and, consequently, the Common Customs Tariff and, on the other, Articles 2, 9, 10 and 17(1) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case C-461/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
19.2.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 47/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,                   issue of a first residence document or have an expulsion
Belgium, by judgment of that court of 23 November 1999,                      order made against them before the issue thereof?
in the case of ASBL Mouvement contre le Racisme,
l’Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX) v Belgian State
                                                                        (1) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for workers of Member States and their families
                                                                            (OJ L 257, p. 13).
                         (Case C-459/99)                                (2) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
                                                                            establishment and the provision of services (OJ L 172, p. 14).
                                                                        (3) determining the third countries whose nationals must be in
                                                                            possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the
                          (2000/C 47/30)                                    Member States (OJ L 234, p. 1.).
                                                                        (4) 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 (OJ L 56, p. 850).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
(Council of State), Belgium, by judgment of 23 November
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 December
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ASBL Mouvement
contre le Racisme, l’Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX)
v Belgian State, on the following questions:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
1. Must Article 3 of Directive 68/360 of 15 October      1968 (1),              of the European Communities against Ireland
    Article 3 of Directive 73/148 of 21 May 1973 (2) and
    Regulation No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 (3), read in                                        (Case C-461/99)
    the light of the principles of proportionality, non-
    discrimination and the right to respect for family life, be
    interpreted as meaning that the Member States may, at the                                       (2000/C 47/31)
    border, send back foreigners who are subject to a visa
    requirement and spouses of Community nationals who
    attempt to enter the territory of a Member State without            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    being in possession of an identity document or visa?                Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 1999 by
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Lena
                                                                        Ström, member of the Legal Service, acting as agents, with an
2. Must Article 4 of Directive 68/360 of 15 October 1968                address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
    and Article 6 of Directive 73/148, read in the light of             Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
    Article 3 of each of those directives and of the principles         Commission, Centre Wagner.
    of proportionality, non-discrimination and the right to
    respect for family life, be interpreted as meaning that
    Member States may refuse to issue a residence document              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
    to the spouse of a Community national who has entered
    their territory in an irregular manner and issue an expulsion       — declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
    order against him?                                                       comply with Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on
                                                                             waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC(2),
                                                                             Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous
3. Do Articles 3 and 4(3) of Directive 68/360, Article 3 of                  waste, and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC (4) on packag-
    Directive 73/148 and Article 3(3) of Directive 64/221 of                 ing and packaging waste, Ireland has failed to comply with
    25 February 1964 (4) mean that the Member States may                     these Directives and with its obligations under the Treaty;
    neither withhold a residence document nor expel the
    foreign spouse of a Community national who has entered              — order Ireland to pay the costs.
    the national territory in a regular manner but whose visa
    has expired when application is made for the issue of that
    document?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
4. Must Articles 1 and 9(2) of Directive 64/221 of 25 Februa-           The Commission considers that the existing general waste
    ry 1964 be interpreted as meaning that the foreign spouses          plans and existing toxic waste plans submitted to it by Ireland
    of Community nationals who are not in possession of                 are unsatisfactory for the purposes of meeting the requirements
    identity documents or a visa or whose visa has expired              of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive
    have the right to refer the matter to the competent                 91/156/EEC, Directive 91/689/EEC and Directive 94/62/EC,
    authority mentioned in Article 9 when applying for the              for the following reasons:
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/20                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.2.2000
— None of the existing general or toxic waste plans submitted              brought by an aggrieved party against a decision taken by the
      by Ireland contain a specific chapter on the management              national regulatory authority?
      of packaging and packaging waste. They thus fail to
      comply with Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC;
                                                                           2.     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
— With regard to Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC, the                    are Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC, Article 2(3) and 4 of
      existing general waste plans submitted by Ireland do not             Commission Directive 96/2/EC (3), and Articles 9(2) and 11(2)
      cover hazardous waste;                                               of Directive 97/13/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           the Council, or the other provisions of Community law, to be
— With regard to Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as                     construed as precluding a provision of national law under
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, the general waste                   which existing holders of a licence for the provision of reserved
      management plans submitted by Ireland were prepared                  mobile telecommunications services within the digital cellular
      pursuant to Irish implementing legislation for Directive             mobile communications sector may, prior to the expiry of
      75/442/EEC before it was amended by Directive                        three years from the entry into force of the decision granting
      91/156/EEC. They were not prepared by reference to the               the DCS-1800 licence in 1997 to an applicant, be granted
      specific requirements of the Irish implementing legislation          additional frequencies from the frequency band reserved for
      for amendments to Directive 75/442/EEC effected by                   DCS-1800 if it is established that, despite employing all
      Directive 91/156/EEC. They therefore cannot be con-                  commercially viable technical possibilities, their user capacity
      sidered as fulfilling the obligations which Ireland has              has been exhausted, where those additional frequencies may
      under Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive                  be allocated without a requirement that a separate fee for their
      91/156/EEC.                                                          use be paid and may also be allocated to a public undertaking
                                                                           holding a dominant market position within the 900 MHz
                                                                           sector?
( 1) of the Council, of 15 July 1975 (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39).
( 2) of 18.3.1991 (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32).
( 3) of 12 December 1991 (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48).                    ( 1) OJ L 192 of 24.7.1990, p. 1.
( 4) European Parliament and Council Directive of 20 December 1994         ( 2) OJ L 295 of 29.10.1997, p. 23.
     (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).                                        ( 3) OJ L 20 of 26.1.1996, p. 59.
                                                                           ( 4) OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof (Austria) by order of 24 November 1999 in                        Action brought on 2 December 1999 by the Commission
the appeal brought by Connect Austria Gesellschaft für                     of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
Telekommunikation GmbH against the Telekom-Control-                                                          lic
Kommission (intervening party: Mobilkom Austria
                         Aktiengesellschaft)
                                                                                (Case C-463/99)
                           (Case C-462/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/33)
                            (2000/C 47/32)
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 December
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by order of 24 November 1999 from                     represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Federal Administrative Court)                  and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on
(Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on                     secondment to that service, with an address for service in
2 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
brought by Connect Austria Gesellschaft für Telekommunika-                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
tion GmbH against the Telekom-Control-Kommission (Tele-
com Monitoring Commission) (intervening party: Mobilkom
Austria Aktiengesellschaft) on the following questions:                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — declare that, by not adopting and, as a subsidiary claim,
1.      On a proper construction of Article 5a(3) of Council                    by not communicating to the Commission, within the
Directive 90/387/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/51/EC (2)                  time-limit laid down the laws, regulations and administrat-
of the European Parliament and of the Council, does that                        ive provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
provision have direct effect in the sense that, overriding                      Directive 96/62/EC (1) of 27 September 1996 on ambient
a contrary domestic rule of jurisdiction, it establishes the                    air quality assessment and management, the Hellenic
jurisdiction of a specific ‘independent body’ at national level to              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
implement a ‘suitable mechanism’ for dealing with an appeal                     and that directive;


title: Case C-79/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 December 2014 in Case T-400/10 Hamas v Council

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/17

         Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 December 2014 in Case T-400/10 Hamas v Council
   (Case C-79/15 P)
   (2015/C 146/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Hamas, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-400/10;

               —

               give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal;
               and

               —

               order the applicant in Case T-400/10 to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law.
   First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the use by the Council of information in the public domain for the periodic review of the measures adopted.
   Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in not concluding that the decisions of the competent authorities of the United States of America on the one hand and of the United Kingdom on the other constituted a sufficient basis to include Hamas on the list.


title: Case T-575/15: Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Kozmetika Afrodita v OHIM — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (AFRODITA COSMETICS)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/38

         Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Kozmetika Afrodita v OHIM — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (AFRODITA COSMETICS)
   (Case T-575/15)
   (2015/C 406/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. (Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) (represented by: B. Grešak, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pedro Nuñez Martín (Madrid, Spain) and Carmen Guillermina Machado Montesinos (Madrid, Spain

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the contested mark: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘AFRODITA COSMETICS’ — Registration No 11 798 287

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2015 in Case R 2578/2014-4.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 50(2)(h) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-498/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Fiscal legislation — Obligation on the recipient of a service, established in the national territory, to withhold at source the wages tax on the remuneration due to a service provider established in another Member State — No such obligation in respect of a service provider established in the same Member State)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-498/10) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Fiscal legislation - Obligation on the recipient of a service, established in the national territory, to withhold at source the wages tax on the remuneration due to a service provider established in another Member State - No such obligation in respect of a service provider established in the same Member State)
   2012/C 379/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X NV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Withholding at source of tax on remuneration which has to be applied by the recipient of a provision of services, established on the national territory, to remuneration due to a service provider having its seat in another Member State — No such obligation in the case of a service provider having its seat in the same Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed, under the legislation of a Member State, on the service recipient to withhold at source wages tax on the remuneration paid to service providers established in another Member State, whereas such an obligation does not exist in relation to remuneration paid to service providers who are established in the Member State at issue, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services, within the meaning of that provision, in that it entails an additional administrative burden and related liability risks.

               2.

               In so far as the restriction to the freedom to provide services arising from national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, results from the obligation to withhold tax at source, in that it entails an additional administrative burden and related liability risks, that restriction can be justified by the need to ensure the effective collection of tax and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose, even in the light of the opportunities for mutual assistance in the recovery of taxes presented by Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001. The subsequent renunciation of the withholding tax at issue in the main proceedings cannot prejudice either its appropriateness to achieve the aim pursued or its proportionality, both of which must be assessed solely in the light of the objectives pursued.

               3.

               In order to determine whether the obligation on the service recipient to withhold tax at source, in that it entails an additional administrative burden and related liability risks, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services prohibited by Article 56 TFEU, it is irrelevant whether the non-resident service provider may deduct the tax withheld in the Netherlands from the tax for which he is liable in the Member State in which he is established.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-826/16 R: Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 16 December 2016 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Contract staff — Termination of a contract of indefinite duration — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/33

         Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 16 December 2016 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission
   (Case T-826/16 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Civil service - Contract staff - Termination of a contract of indefinite duration - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))
   (2017/C 038/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luis Javier Casasnovas Bernad (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of 27 September 2016 terminating the applicant’s contract.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-74/01: Action brought on 29 March 2001 by Albano Ferrer de Moncada against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 161/24               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                  —     infringement of the recruitment notice under
                                                                              Article 12(2)(e) of the Conditions of Employment of
                                                                              Other Servants, since the successful candidate did not
                                                                              meet the conditions concerning knowledge of languages
                                                                              laid down in that provision.
The applicant, who was a candidate for the post of Secretary-
General of the Committee of the Regions, opposes the decision
of the defendant institution to reject his application.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
—    infringement of the first sentence of the first paragraph          Action brought on 29 March 2001 by Albano Ferrer
     of Article 11 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
                                                                        de Moncada against the Commission of the European
     Servants and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, in that                                    Communities
     the contested decisions do not contain an adequate
     statement of the reasons on which they are based;
                                                                                (Case T-74/01)
—    breach of the principles of objectivity of recruitment
                                                                                (2001/C 161/48)
     procedure and equal treatment of candidates, in that
     the acting Secretary-General was responsible for the
     recruitment procedure at issue;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—    breach of the principles of objectivity and equal treatment
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     in the selection procedure and in the decision setting up
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 29 March
     that procedure, since;
                                                                        2001 by Albano Ferrer de Moncada, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                        represented by Luc Misson and Laurent Wysen, Lawyers, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
     —     the applicant’s application was not forwarded in full
           to the ad hoc committee responsible for examining
           the recruitment procedure or to the Bureau;                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                        —     annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
     —     the administration forwarded to the Bureau a docu-                 plaint, dated 19 September 2000, on the basis of
           ment indicating that the applicant did not satisfy the             Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
           conditions for preferential treatment laid down in
           the notice;
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay LUF 5 million to the applicant
                                                                              as compensation for non-material damage;
     —     two of the four candidates had a meeting with
           certain members of the Bureau the day before its             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
           meeting of 19 May;
                                                                        Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
     —     the agenda of the meeting of the Bureau included
           submission to the Bureau by the acting Secretary-
           General, in agreement with the President, of the
           Annual Operational Programme for the Committee;              The applicant states that one or more persons, whose identity
                                                                        at this stage is unknown to him, have been making, in
                                                                        particular within the EURATOM departments of the Com-
                                                                        mission, calumnious, insulting and defamatory allegations
     —     the ad hoc committee did not draw up a reasoned              against him, calling in question his professional integrity and
           list of successful candidates, or did not give an            stating, among other things, that he disclosed confidential
           opinion to the Bureau after interviewing the candi-          information to third parties. A case-file has been opened on
           dates;                                                       the subject.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 161/25
The applicant considered that the facts justified the bringing            After completion of tasks by a consultant, who determined,
of proceedings against ‘X’ before the Luxembourg court of                 inter alia, the broad outline for modernisation of the sector
competent jurisdiction.                                                   concerned, the applicant was instructed by the Commission,
                                                                          at an initial stage, to assist in drawing up the proposal for
                                                                          financing various elements of the ESSP Programme. The
The appointing authority rejected the applicant’s request that
                                                                          financing proposal was accepted and the applicant was
he be allowed to produce in the Luxembourg Criminal Court
                                                                          instructed, in the second stage, to draw up terms of reference
all the documents listed in an annex to that request, and any
                                                                          for the various elements of the ESSP Programme, and to assist
other relevant document which had not been disclosed to him.
                                                                          the Syrian beneficiaries in evaluating the pre-qualification
That is the decision at issue in these proceedings.
                                                                          tender files. The final responsibility for adoption of the terms
                                                                          of references, evaluation of the tenders and drafting of the
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          contracts attached to the Syrian authorities, under Commission
                                                                          supervision. Following the further preparation of the detailed
—     infringement of Articles 19 and 24 of the Staff Regu-               specifications for a system appropriate to Syrian conditions, a
      lations;                                                            call for tenders was issued by the Syrian authorities for the
                                                                          installation of an OPS (Operation Planning System). Two
—     infringement of Articles 6 and 13 of the European                   tenders were submitted in response to that call, one of which
      Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                   considerably undercut the competing tender, being submitted
      Fundamental Freedoms.                                               by the applicant itself. The applicant was finally successful.
                                                                          The applicant adds, however, that, more than one month after
                                                                          signature of the contract, it was advised that the Commission
                                                                          was no longer able to approve the contract, but no reasons for
                                                                          this were given. Indeed, it did not become aware of the
                                                                          Commission’s alleged reasons until proceedings were brought
                                                                          before the Ombudsman.
Action brought on 29 March 2001 by Systems-Europe SA
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
                           (Case T-75/01)                                 Commission’s improper conduct in this case is apparent from
                                                                          various acts, courses of conduct and failure to act occurring
                                                                          throughout the procedure for award of the contract at issue,
                          (2001/C 161/49)                                 and subsequently after signature of that contract by the Syrian
                                                                          authorities.
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
29 March 2001 by Systems-Europe SA, established in Brussels,
represented by Bernard Jamoulle, Frédéric Louis and Anne
Vallery, Lawyers.
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-349/99 (1)
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     order the European Community, represented by the                                             (2001/C 161/50)
      Commission, to pay to Systems-Europe SA the sum of
      EUR 921 750 ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                          has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-349/99,
                                                                          Miroslav Miskovic v Council of the European Union.
The applicant, which at the material time was a medium sized
independent engineering consultancy company incorporated
under Belgian law, specialising in particular in data processing
in the electricity sector, seeks compensation for the loss                (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
allegedly suffered by it as a result of the alleged misconduct of
the Commission in the context of a programme of financial
support for modernisation of the production and distribution
of electricity in Syria (ESSP Programme).