title: Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2002 in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd, supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International SA (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis — Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and intended for export to non-member countries)

text:
8.2.2003                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 31/3
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                      cation for annulment of Council Decision 2001/469/EC of
court between F. W. L. de Groot and Staatssecretaris van                       14 May 2001 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the
Financiën, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty                European Community of the Agreement between the Govern-
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of                         ment of the United States of America and the European
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October                       Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the                             programs for office equipment (OJ 2001 L 172, p. 1), the Court
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), the                 (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-                       President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
teur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,                            P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,                         H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-                  a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
trar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                               1.    Annuls Council Decision 2001/469/EC of 14 May 2001
1.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39                  concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community
      EC) precludes rules such as those at issue in the main                         of the Agreement between the Government of the United States
      proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down                of America and the European Community on the coordination
      in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby                 of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment;
      a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable
      by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of         2.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
      that income and of his personal tax advantages because, during
      the year in question, he also received income in another Member
      State which was taxed in that State without his personal and             (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
      family circumstances being taken into account.
2.    Community law contains no specific requirement with regard to
      the way in which the State of residence must take into account
      the personal and family circumstances of a worker who, during
      a particular tax year, received income in that State and in
      another Member State, except that the conditions governing the
      way in which the State of residence takes those circumstances
      into account must not constitute discrimination, either direct or
      indirect, on grounds of nationality, or an obstacle to the exercise                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EC Treaty.
                                                                                of 10 December 2002
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                               in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                               Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v
                                                                               Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
                                                                               supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                                       SA (1)
                       of 12 December 2002                                     (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and
                                                                               sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis —
in Case C-281/01: Commission of the European Communi-                          Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability
            ties v Council of the European Union ( 1)                          to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and
                                                                                intended for export to non-member countries)
(International agreements — Community competence —
Legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC — Energy
Star Agreement — Energy-efficient labelling programmes                                                     (2003/C 31/06)
                        for office equipment)
                            (2003/C 31/05)                                                         (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                               In Case C-491/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-281/01, Commission of the European Communities                       EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s
(Agents: H. van Lier and B. Martenczuk) v Council of the                       Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) for a
European Union (Agents: J.-P. Jacqué and E. Karlsson): Appli-                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/4                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.2.2003
court between The Queen and Secretary of State for Health, ex                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law
parte: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and                              and in particular infringed Article 10 EC and Articles 2
Imperial Tobacco Ltd, supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT                       and 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of
International SA, on the validity and interpretation of Directive                  31 October 1994 on the system of the European
2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                        Communities own resources ( 1);
5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products
                                                                             —     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the
(OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
                                                                                present proceedings.
guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hew-
lett, Principal Administrator, and M.-F. Contet, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002,
in which it has ruled:                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
1.     Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
       of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 2001/37/
       EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June
       2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and                The Community Customs Code regulates the relationship
       administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the         between undertakings and the national authorities, which
       manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.               governs the collection of the traditional own resources on
                                                                             behalf of the Community, whereas the relationship between
                                                                             the Community and the Member States is regulated by the
2.     Article 7 of Directive 2001/37 is to be construed as applying
                                                                             provisions of the Community financing scheme, that is,
       only to tobacco products marketed within the European
                                                                             in particular, Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom, the
       Community.
                                                                             implementing provisions of Council Regulation No 1552/
                                                                             89 (2) and also the general obligations under Article 10 EC.
                                                                             The fact that a purely technical link is created between the two
( 1) OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                             aforementioned sets of rules, in that Regulation No 1552/89
                                                                             covers to a certain extent various stages which under the
                                                                             Community Customs Code are carried out as part of the
                                                                             determination of the amount of duty owing and the rules for
                                                                             collection thereof, has no bearing on the issue of national
                                                                             authorities’ financial liability to the Community for any errors
                                                                             committed in the course of collecting the traditional own
                                                                             resources. The protection given to the person liable for
Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission                          payment by the Customs Code, in particular Article 220(2)(b)
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           thereof, cannot be relied on by the Member State as against
                               Denmark                                       the Commission when that Member State has not collected the
                                                                             resources in question. If a Member State fails to collect the
                                                                             traditional own resources, it can, subject to certain conditions,
                           (Case C-392/02)                                   be freed from the obligation to place those resources at the
                                                                             disposal of the Commission only under Article 17 of Regu-
                                                                             lation No 1552/89.
                            (2003/C 31/07)
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought                         In a number of cases in the period 1996-1997 the Danish
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   authorities allowed the zero-rated import of frozen sugar peas
8 November 2002 by the Commission of the European                            from the People’s Republic of China, despite the fact that the
Communities, represented by H.P. Hartvig and G Wilms, acting                 undertaking in question did not have a permit to import the
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                        goods at such a rate because of their particular end-use. There
                                                                             were even divergent opinions amongst the regional Danish
                                                                             authorities, which led to a finding on the part of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Commission, at the request of the Danish authorities and
                                                                             pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
—      rule that since the Danish authorities have not transferred           No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
       to the Commission an amount of DKK 140 409,60 from                    Customs Code ( 3) that, due to an error on the part of the
       its own resources together with default interest thereon              Danish authorities, it could not require the importer to pay
       as from 20 December 1999, the Kingdom of Denmark                      duty for any of the imports in question.


title: Case T-486/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (SUPERSKIN)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/41

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (SUPERSKIN)
   (Case T-486/08)
   (2009/C 6/80)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd (formerly Liz Earle Cosmetics Ltd.) (Ryde, United Kingdom) (represented by M. Cover, solicitor)

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

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2008 in case R 1656/2007-4 and declare that the Community trade mark concerned (application No 5 967 856) proceed to application and registration; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SUPERSKIN’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — application No 5 967 856

      Decision of the examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the trade mark concerned is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services for which registration is sought.


               10.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/3

         Action brought on 29 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-19/15)
   (2015/C 410/03)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 29 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider, Clémence Perrin and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that the Principality of Liechtenstein has breached its obligations arising from Articles 9, 10, 13 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, and, to the extent that establishments and the provisions of cross-border services fall outside the scope of that Act, its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement:

                           (a)

                           by maintaining in force Article 7 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act which sets up a prior authorisation scheme for undertakings intending to establish themselves in Liechtenstein; and,

                           (b)

                           by maintaining in force Article 8(1) of the Liechtenstein Trade Act in so far as it imposes conditions that are not clear and unambiguous for granting prior authorisation for undertakings intending to establish themselves in Liechtenstein (namely the obligation to have the necessary personnel and the obligation to have an adequate command of the German language); and,

                           (c)

                           by failing to ensure that requirements, which are equivalent or essentially comparable as regards their purpose, to which the service provider is already subject in another EEA State or in the same EEA State in the procedure for prior authorisation for undertakings wishing to establish themselves in Liechtenstein are not duplicated and that the procedure and formalities concerning the authorisation scheme under the Trade Act is clearly laid down; and,

                           (d)

                           by maintaining in force Article 21 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act which sets up a prior authorisation scheme for undertakings wishing to provide cross-border services in Liechtenstein; and

               2.

               Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application concerns the requirements under the Act of 22 June 2006 on trade and commerce (the ‘Trade Act’) – namely Articles 7 and 21 – for undertakings wishing to establish themselves or to provide cross-border services in Liechtenstein to be approved by the national authorities prior to the establishment or the provision of cross-border services.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits, inter alia, that such requirements amount to authorisation schemes that cannot be justified under Article 9 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (the ‘Services Directive’) in the case of establishments and Article 16 of the Services Directive in the case of provisions of cross-border services.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that also Article 21 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act, which requires undertakings wishing to provide cross-border services in Liechtenstein to notify the Liechtenstein authorities in writing before doing so, and to annually renew such a notification, amounts to an authorisation scheme breaching Article 16 of the Services Directive.

               —

               According to the submissions by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Liechtenstein claims that, in principle, its prior authorisation schemes are in line with the Services Directive since they can be justified under its Articles 9 and 16 or, alternatively, Article 33 of the EEA Agreement (or overriding reasons relating to public interest developed under this Article).


title: Case T-542/14: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Form of round sandwich bread)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/26

         Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Form of round sandwich bread)
   (Case T-542/14) (1)

   (2015/C 228/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case T-655/13: Action brought on 9 December 2013 — Enercon v OHIM (Shades of the colour green)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/26

         Action brought on 9 December 2013 — Enercon v OHIM (Shades of the colour green)
   (Case T-655/13)
   2014/C 39/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 in Case R 0247/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark representing shades of the colour green for goods in Classes 7, 16 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 11055811

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-546/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — proceedings by Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Article 4(3) TEU — Directive 2006/112/EC — Insolvency — Procedure for an arrangement with creditors — Partial payment of VAT debts)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/15

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — proceedings by Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation
      (Case C-546/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Article 4(3) TEU - Directive 2006/112/EC - Insolvency - Procedure for an arrangement with creditors - Partial payment of VAT debts))
      (2016/C 211/17)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Udine

         Party to the main proceedings

      Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation

         Intervening party: Pubblico Ministero presso il Tribunale di Udine

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2, 250(1) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, interpreted as meaning that an insolvent trader may apply to a court to open a procedure for an arrangement with creditors for the purpose of settling its debts by liquidating its assets, in which that trader offers only partial payment of a value added tax debt and establishes by an independent expert’s report that that debt would not be repaid more fully in the event of that trader’s bankruptcy.

         (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case T-446/12: Action brought on 9 October 2012 — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/12

         Action brought on 9 October 2012 — Drex Technologies v Council
   (Case T-446/12)
   2012/C 373/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Isles) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               In consequence, annul

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant;

                           —

                           and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  JO 2011 C 290, p. 13.


title: Case C-285/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Marta Gentile and Marcel Gentile v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Marta Gentile and Marcel Gentile v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-285/17)
   (2017/C 283/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marta Gentile, Marcel Gentile

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

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

               2.

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

               3.

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

               4.

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

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-102/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Ingeborg Beuttenmüller v Land Baden-Württemberg (Freedom of movement for workers — Recognition of diplomas — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Primary and secondary school teachers — Holder of a diploma of post-secondary studies of two years' duration — Conditions for the exercise of the profession)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-102/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Ingeborg Beuttenmüller v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Recognition of diplomas - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Primary and secondary school teachers - Holder of a diploma of post-secondary studies of two years' duration - Conditions for the exercise of the profession)
   (2004/C 118/32)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-102/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Ingeborg Beuttenmüller and Land Baden-Württemberg — on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48 (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1)

               The second subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration must be interpreted as meaning that a qualification for the profession of teacher, such as that formerly awarded on the basis of a two-year period of education and training in Austria, is to be treated in the same way as a diploma within the meaning of the first subparagraph of that provision where the competent authority of that Member State certifies that the diploma awarded following education and training of two years' duration is recognised as being of a level equivalent to the diploma currently awarded after three years' study and confers the same rights in that Member State in respect of the taking up or pursuit of the profession of teacher. It is for the national court to determine, in the light of the evidence submitted by the applicant in accordance with Article 8(1) of that directive and the national provisions applicable to the assessment of such evidence, whether the final condition laid down by the second subparagraph of Article 1(a) must be regarded as satisfied in the case in the main proceedings. That condition concerns the right to take up a regulated profession and not the remuneration and other employment conditions applicable in the Member State which recognises the equivalence of the old and new education and training.

               2)

               Article 3(a) of Directive 89/48 may be relied upon by a national of a Member State as against national provisions inconsistent with that directive. That directive precludes such provisions where, for the purpose of recognising a professional teaching qualification awarded or recognised in a Member State other than the host Member State, they require, without exception, completion of a period of higher education and training of at least three years' duration and covering at least two of the subjects stipulated for the teaching profession in the host Member State.

               3)

               In the absence of implementing measures enacted within the period prescribed in the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48, a national of a Member State may rely on Article 3(a) of that directive in order to obtain in the host Member State recognition of a professional teaching qualification such as that awarded in Austria following education and training of two years' duration. In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, that possibility is neither excluded by reason of the application of the derogation laid down by the final subparagraph of Article 3 of that directive nor is it conditional upon the applicant first complying with any compensatory measures that may be required pursuant to Article 4 of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.


title: Case C-29/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden)) — Skatteverket v AB SKF (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2, 4, 13B(d)(5) and 17 — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2, 9, 135(1)(f) and 168 — Disposal by a parent company of a subsidiary and of its holding in a controlled company — Scope of VAT — Exemption — Supplies of services acquired as part of share disposal transactions — Deductibility of VAT)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden)) — Skatteverket v AB SKF
   (Case C-29/08) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2, 4, 13B(d)(5) and 17 - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2, 9, 135(1)(f) and 168 - Disposal by a parent company of a subsidiary and of its holding in a controlled company - Scope of VAT - Exemption - Supplies of services acquired as part of share disposal transactions - Deductibility of VAT)
   2009/C 312/04
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Regeringsrätten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: AB SKF

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 13B(d)(5) and 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and Articles 2, 9, 135(1) and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system for value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Sale, by a parent company, of a subsidiary and of its interests in another company with a view to restructuring the group of companies — Deduction of VAT paid on supplies of services acquired by the parent company in the context of those transactions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 2(1) and 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, and Articles 2(1) and 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, where a parent company disposes of all the shares in a wholly-owned subsidiary and of its remaining shareholding in a controlled company which was in the past wholly owned by it, and where it has supplied to those companies services that are subject to value added tax, that disposal is an economic activity coming within the scope of those directives. However, in so far as the disposal of shares is equivalent to the transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof of an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 5(8) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, or the first paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 2006/112, and where the Member State concerned has chosen to exercise the option provided for by those provisions, that transaction does not constitute an economic activity subject to value added tax.

               2.

               A disposal of shares such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be exempted from value added tax pursuant to both Article 13B(d)(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, and Article 135(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112.

               3.

               There is a right to deduct input value added tax paid on services supplied for the purposes of a disposal of shares, under Article 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Directive 77/338, as amended by Directive 95/7, and Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, if there is a direct and immediate link between the costs associated with the input services and the overall economic activities of the taxable person. It is for the referring court to take account of all the circumstances surrounding the transactions at issue in the main proceedings and to determine whether the costs incurred are likely to be incorporated in the price of the shares sold, or if they are among only the cost components of transactions within the scope of the taxable person’s economic activities.

               4.

               The answers to the preceding questions are not affected by the fact that the disposal of shares is carried out by way of several successive transactions.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-152/11: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (MAD) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark MAD — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (MAD)
   (Case T-152/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark MAD - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 449/2009-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case C-129/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 March 2011 — OOD Provadiinvest v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 March 2011 — OOD Provadiinvest v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’
   (Case C-129/11)
   2011/C 145/25
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen Sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OOD Provadiinvest

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 80(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that, where there are supplies between connected persons, in so far as the consideration is lower than the open market value, the taxable amount is the open market value of the transaction only if the supplier or the acquirer does not qualify for the full right to deduct the input tax chargeable on the purchase or production of the goods which are supplied?

               2.

               Is Article 80(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, if the supplier has exercised the full right to deduct the input tax on goods and services which are the subject of subsequent supplies between connected persons at a value which is lower than the open market value, and that right to deduct input tax has not been corrected under Articles 173 to 177 of the Directive and the supply is not subject to a tax exemption within the meaning of Articles 132, 135, 136, 371, 375, 376, 377, 378(2), 379(2) and 380 to 390 of the Directive, a Member State is not permitted to adopt measures whereby the taxable amount is exclusively the open market value?

               3.

               Is Article 80(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, if the acquirer has exercised the right to deduct in full the input tax on goods and services which are the subject of supplies between connected persons with a lower value than the open market value, a Member State is not permitted to adopt measures whereby the taxable amount is exclusively the open market value?

               4.

               Does Article 80(1) of Directive 2006/112 constitute an exhaustive list of cases representing the circumstances in which a Member State is permitted to take measures whereby the taxable amount in respect of supplies is to be the open market value of the transaction?

               5.

               Is a provision of national law such as Article 27(3)(1) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on VAT) permissible in cases other than those listed in Article 80(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112?

               6.

               In a case such as the present does Article 80(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112 have direct effect, and may the domestic court apply it directly?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-132/14: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/27

         Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR)
   (Case T-132/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 155/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Albis Plastic GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: initially by C. Klawitter, and subsequently by C. Klawitter and P. Nagel, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IQAP Masterbatch Group, SL (Masíes de Roda, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2013 (Case R 1015/2012-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between IQAP Masterbatch Group, SL and Albis Plastic GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case F-77/13: Action brought on 9 August 2013 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/27

         Action brought on 9 August 2013 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-77/13)
   2013/C 352/53
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W. Brouwer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision fixing the interest payable on the sum paid on the basis of total incapacity for work following injuries suffered in two accidents while on work-related travel and payment of damages for the harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 15 October 2012, in conjunction with that of 13 March 2012 and that of 18 December 2012, respectively;

               —

               annul the implied decision of 10 May 2013 rejecting the claim of 10 January 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the interest due from it on the amount of EUR 170 074,39 paid to the applicant on 14 May 2013, namely:

                           —

                           principally: interest due for the period from 21 February 2001 to 14 May 2013, assessed at EUR 138 331,75;

                           —

                           in the alternative: interest due for the period from 27 January 2004 to 14 May 2013, assessed at EUR 83 154,25;

                           —

                           in the further alternative: at least, the interest due for the period from 27 January 2001 to 1 February 2013, assessed at EUR 80 356,75, at least, from a date to be fixed by the Tribunal in accordance with judicial discretion from which the interest is to fall due, or award an amount of compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant for which the defendant is responsible which takes account of the defendant’s omissions;

               —

               order the defendant to pay:

                           —

                           principally: the interest due from the defendant on the amounts paid under policy WBA&I 2600914, on 3 May 2010, namely:

                                       —

                                       interest from the date on which the debt in respect of the damage to hearing came into being (5 % AMA, EUR 11 344,50), for the period from 11 December 2002, less 15 days (section 4B of the policy), to 3 May 2010, which amounts to EUR 4 875,28;

                                       —

                                       interest from the date on which the debt in respect of the damage to the ankle came into being (9 % AMA, EUR 20 420,12) for the period from the date on which Europol was held liable, 27 January 2004, less 15 days (section 4B of the policy) to 3 May 2010, which amounts to EUR 6 878,71;

                                       —

                                       interest from the date on which the debt in respect of the cognitive damage came into being (16 % AMA, EUR 36 302,41) for the period from the date on which Europol was held liable, 27 January 2004, less 15 days (section 4B of the policy) to 3 May 2010, which amounts to EUR 12 228,81;

                           —

                           in the alternative: award the applicant an amount for compensation for the damage for which the defendant is responsible which takes account of the defendant’s omissions;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the representative’s fees.


title: Case C-29/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Suceava (Romania) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Aurora Elena Sfichi v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Suceava (Romania) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Aurora Elena Sfichi v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu
   (Case C-29/11)
   2011/C 113/08
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Suceava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aurora Elena Sfichi

      Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax governed by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, as subsequently amended and supplemented, which is levied upon the first registration in Romania of second-hand imported motor vehicles which have previously been registered in other Member States, account being taken of the fact that that tax is not applied to second-hand motor vehicles registered in Romania where they are the object of certain transactions and are re-registered?

               2.

               Does the second paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), which is intended to eliminate factors liable to protect the national market and to breach the principles of competition, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in Romania of second-hand imported motor vehicles which have previously been registered in other Member States, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for motor vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with a cylinder capacity of not more than 2 000 cc, and all motor vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4, which were registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State of the European Union between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009 inclusive, that is to say, for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania, thus favouring the domestic motor vehicle manufacturing industry?


title: Case C-522/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Tevfik Isbir v DB Services GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Directive 96/71/EC — Minimum rates of pay — Lump sums and employer contribution to a multiannual savings plan for the benefit of its employees)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Tevfik Isbir v DB Services GmbH
   (Case C-522/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Directive 96/71/EC - Minimum rates of pay - Lump sums and employer contribution to a multiannual savings plan for the benefit of its employees)
   2014/C 9/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tevfik Isbir

      Defendant: DB Services GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Calculation of the minimum rate of pay — Inclusion of the employer contribution to a multiannual savings plan for the benefit of its employees — Situation in which the employees cannot have access to those assets for several years

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the inclusion in the minimum wage of elements of remuneration which do not alter the relationship between the service provided by the worker, on the one hand, and the consideration which he receives by way of remuneration for that service, on the other. It is for the national court to verify whether that is the case as regards the elements of remuneration at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case F-5/09: Action brought on 26 January 2009 — Soerensen Ferraresi v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/45

         Action brought on 26 January 2009 — Soerensen Ferraresi v Commission
   (Case F-5/09)
   2009/C 113/93
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ayo Soerensen Ferraresi (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Di Vuolo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   An application for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of mobbing experienced by the applicant and the decision of the Invalidity Committee to retire the applicant of its own motion on the ground of invalidity.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for the physical harm and the non-material and financial loss suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-80/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Temporary importation procedure with relief from duties — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Conditions laid down for the total relief from import duties — Means of transport for aviation registered outside of the customs territory of the Union and used by a person established outside of that territory — Article 555(1)(a) — Commercial use — Concept — Use of helicopters by an aviation school for remunerated training flights flown by a trainee and instructor — Not included)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/5

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
   (Case C-80/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Temporary importation procedure with relief from duties - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Conditions laid down for the total relief from import duties - Means of transport for aviation registered outside of the customs territory of the Union and used by a person established outside of that territory - Article 555(1)(a) - Commercial use - Concept - Use of helicopters by an aviation school for remunerated training flights flown by a trainee and instructor - Not included))
   (2016/C 350/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Robert Fuchs AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 must be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flights for helicopter flight instruction, with a trainee pilot and a flight instructor on board, are not to be regarded as constituting commercial use of a means of transport for the purposes of that provision

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case C-28/10 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2009 by Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2009 in Case T-110/09: Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/16

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2009 by Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2009 in Case T-110/09: Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-28/10 P)
   2010/C 80/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant(s): Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu (represented by: A. Riza QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Council Decision 2004/511/EC (1) on the ground that it is based on an unlawful failure to act to enable the Turkish Cypriot people to take part in European elections in violation of Article 189 of the EC Treaty read together with Articles 5 and 6 if the Treaty on European Union.

               —

               Declare that the six MEPs notified by the RoC after 6 June 2009 returned under the present electoral arrangements do not represent the Turkish Cypriot as required by law.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance was wrong when it ruled that his action was lodged out of time. In support of this argument he submits that the case law relied upon by the CFI did not involve a failure to provide for the fundamental right of participating in elections of an entire people and did not concern a decision whose legal premise was a failure to act and make provisions for elections rather than to purport to postpone the right to hold such elections.
   The appellant also submits that it was not the case that he did not invoke the existence of an excusable error or force majeure when lodging his application.

      (1)  2004/511/EC:Council Decision of 10 June 2004 concerning the representation of the people of Cyprus in the European Parliament in case of a settlement of the Cyprus problem
   OJ L 211, p. 22


title: Case C-130/03: Action brought on 24 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
24.5.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 124/9
The obligation to end breaches of the Community law on the                     electricity occasioned, as stated in the reasoning, by the
award of contracts even by terminating contracts that have                     altered legislative framework and to finance general
already been concluded can also not be placed in question by                   revenue charges of the electricity system.
Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 (2), which deals with ex post
facto review of potential breaches of the Community law on
tendering. A Treaty infringement can be treated as terminated           (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
only once the Member State concerned recognises the illegal                  of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
nature of its action and the breach has been completely                      market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20).
brought to an end.
( 1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                        Action brought on 24 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-130/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/16)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
Stato by order of that Court of 14 January 2003 in the
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Torino SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 March
  elettrica e per il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA              2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Niels Bertil Rasmussen and Luigi Cimaglia,
                                                                        acting as Agents.
                 (Case C-128/03 and C-129/03)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2003/C 124/15)
                                                                        —      Declare that, by failing to designate Community trade
                                                                               mark courts and tribunals of first and second instance, or
                                                                               in any event by failing to forward to the Commission,
                                                                               within the prescribed period, a list of such courts and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         tribunals indicating their names and territorial jurisdic-
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                        tion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(Council of State) of 14 January 2003, received at the Court                   under Article 91 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)
Registry on 24 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                     of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM Torino
SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per         —      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA on the following
questions:
(a)   Can an administrative measure which, on the terms and             Pleas in law and main arguments
      for the purposes stated in the reasoning, imposes on
      certain undertakings using the electricity transmission
      network an increased charge for access and use in order           Under the second paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty
      to finance general revenue charges of the electricity             establishing the European Community, regulations are binding
      system be regarded as a State aid for the purposes of             in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Article 87 et seq. EC
                                                                        In the present case, Article 91 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
(b)   Must the principles established in Directive 96/92 (1)            imposes an obligation on Member States to designate, in
      concerning the liberalisation of the internal electricity         accordance with their own national legal systems, national
      market and in particular Article 7 and 8 thereof concern-         courts and tribunals of first and second instance with jurisdic-
      ing operation of the electricity transmission network be          tion in matters of infringement and validity of Community
      interpreted as precluding the possibility for the Member          trade marks, and to forward to the Commission a list
      State to adopt measures imposing for a transitional period        of designated Community trade mark courts and tribunals
      on certain undertakings for access to and use of the              indicating their names and territorial jurisdiction. The final
      transmission network an increased charge in order to              date for compliance with these obligations was 15 March
      offset the overvaluation of hydroelectric and geothermal          1997.
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          24.5.2003
The Commission cannot but find that the Italian Republic has            The Appellants claim that the Court should:
not yet forwarded to it the above information and has not thus
far designated any Community trade mark court or tribunal,
                                                                        —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
thereby also failing to meet its obligations under Article 91(1)
                                                                              15 January 2003, whereby it:
of that regulation.
                                                                              i)    dismissed the applications as inadmissible;
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.
                                                                              ii)   ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and,
                                                                                jointly and severally, the costs incurred by the
                                                                                Commission; and
                                                                              iii) ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                        —     declare their applications for annulment admissible on
Appeal brought on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds                              the basis that the contested decisions were manifestly
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reyn-                     illegal and to give final judgment in the matter; alterna-
olds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                            tively;
national Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., against the judg-
ment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First                    —     declare their applications for annulment admissible and
Instance of the European Communities in joined cases                          refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01                           judgment on the merits; alternatively;
between Philip Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reyn-               —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
olds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                            consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the
national Inc. and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission                         merits and for judgment accordingly;
of the European Communities, supported by European
Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian
Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Fed-                —     order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to
eral Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of                       Article 69, second paragraph of the Rules of Procedure
                         the Netherlands                                      of the Court of Justice.
                        (Case C-131/03 P)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2003/C 124/17)
                                                                        The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in
                                                                        law in so far as it held that, as a matter of principle, a decision
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003             to commence proceedings cannot be considered to be a
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court               decision which is open to challenge. Apart from the judgment
of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases           of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and             case 60/81, IMB v. Commission, which establishes admissi-
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,                 bility where there are ‘exceptional circumstances’, the case-law
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,            clearly demonstrates that admissibility of new classes or types
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                    of application is determined on a case by case basis.
International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-
ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of           The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the case-law when
Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,                 it found that no legal effects ensued from the loss of the
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 possibility of obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Communities on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                   Justice of the European Communities as to the Commission’s
Holdings, Inc., established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina            competence to commence proceedings in a third state in an
(United States), RJR Acquisition Corp., established in Wilming-         attempt to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and VAT.
ton, Delaware (United States), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Com-               In concluding that commencing proceedings in a third country,
pany, established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United              rather than in the Community, did not have legal effects, the
States), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., established in       Court of First Instance also misinterpreted the case-law that
Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United States) and Japan                 provides that where a definitive choice has been made for one
Tobacco, Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by             procedure over another, the decision embodying that choice
O.W. Brouwer, lawyer, and P. Lomas, solicitor.                          has legal effects for the purpose of Article 230.


title: Case T-173/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 — Z v Commission (Interim measures — Access by a third party concerned to a Commission decision imposing a fine but not yet published — Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate — No urgency)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/22

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 — Z v Commission
   (Case T-173/09 R)
   (Interim measures - Access by a third party concerned to a Commission decision imposing a fine but not yet published - Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate - No urgency)
   2009/C 193/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Z (X, Germany) (represented by: C. Grau and N. Jäger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Sauer, V. Bottka and A. Bouquet, Agents)

      Re:

   Access to the Commission’s decision of 28 January 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/G/39.406 — Marine hoses) and deletion of the applicant’s name from the text of that decision

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed insofar as it has not already become devoid of purpose.

               2.

               This order annuls and replaces the order of 6 May 2009.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-252/08: Action brought on 12 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/15

         Action brought on 12 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-252/08)
   (2008/C 197/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to correctly apply Directive 2001/80/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1) (hereinafter ‘the Directive’) in relation to the operation of the Phase One steam plant of the Delimara power station and the power station at Marsa, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annex IV A, Annex VI A and Annex VII A, and under Article 12 in conjunction with Annex VIII A.2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that the Phase One steam plant of the Delimara power station does not respect the emission limit values fixed by the directive for emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust.
   It is further submitted that, with regard to both the Phase One steam plant of the Delimara power station and the power station at Marsa, Malta has failed to comply with the requirement for continuous measurement of concentrations of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust pursuant to Art. 12 and paragraph 2 of Part A of Annex VIII of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1.


title: Case C-344/01: Action brought on 12 September 2001 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/16                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Action brought on 12 September 2001 by the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-323/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 5 June 2000.
                                                                                (Case C-344/01)
( 1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 1.
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/30)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Social No 33 de Madrid by an order of 3 September                            Communities on 12 September 2001 by the Federal Republic
2001 in the case of Marı́a Paz Merino Gómez against                         of Germany represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat
              Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.                        and Moritz Lumma, Oberregierungsrat, Bundesministerium
                                                                             der Finanzen, Graurheindorfter Str. 108, D-53117 Bonn.
                            (Case C-342/01)
                            (2001/C 317/29)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo Social
No 33 de Madrid (Social Court, Madrid) of 3 September 2001,                  1.    Annul the Commissions decision of 11 July 2001
which was received at the Court Registry on 12 September                           (K(2001) 1795 final) excluding from Community finan-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Paz Merino                    cing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
Grómez against Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.. The                       under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid asks the Court of Justice                     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1).
to rule on the following questions:
1.      Where collective agreements between an employer and                  2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
        workers’ representatives fix the timing of leave for the
        entire workforce, and where the dates in question coincide
        with those of a worker’s maternity leave, do Article 7(1)
        of Directive 93/104 (1), Article 11 (2) (a) of Directive
        92/85 (2) and Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207 (3) guaran-
        tee that worker’s entitlement to take annual leave during
        a period other than the one agreed, which does not                   Pleas in law and main arguments
        coincide with her period of maternity leave?
2.      If the first question is answered in the affirmative, what is        —     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
        the substantive scope of the entitlement to annual leave?                  (inadequate communication of the facts). The application
        Does it cover exclusively the four weeks’ leave referred to                of conclusions reached on the three Länder which were
        in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/104, or does it extend to                  examined for the purposes of suckler-cow premiums to
        the thirty calendar days laid down by national legislation,                the other Länder which were not examined does not
        in Article 38(1) of Royal Decree-Law 1/95, the Workers’                    appear to be justified per se having regard to the decentrali-
        Statute?                                                                   sed administrative system required by constitutional law
                                                                                in Germany. The Federal Government, rather, regards the
                                                                                grounds for refusing the premiums to those Länder which
(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
     certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 307 of              were not examined in this case to be wholly unfounded
     13.12.1993, p. 18).                                                           on a number of grounds. For that reason, similar
(2) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduc-                conclusions were not reached in the area of suckler-cow
     tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and                  premiums following very recent studies, that is to say, in
     health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have                       Brandenburg and Niedersachsen in 1996 and in Rhein-
     recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ L 348 of 28.11.1992,            land-Pfalz in 1999.
     p. 1).
(3) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and                Therefore, by reversing the burden of proof so that it
     women as regards access to employment, vocational training and                fell on Germany without any concrete reasons, the
     promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40).              Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to provide
                                                                                evidence of an infringement of Community law in the
                                                                                area of suckler-cow premiums.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 317/17
—    Infringement of the principles of proper administration.                 to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid
     In spreading the burden over all the Länder, the Com-                    fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (1), or, in any
     mission departed from an administrative practice which                   event, by failing to communicate the same to the
     had pertained for many years without any reason. In the                  Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     light of the legal scope of such a new procedure, it would               obligations under that directive;
     have been necessary on grounds of proper administration,
     foreseeability and transparency for the Commission to              —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     give notice of its change of policy and at least an outline
     thereof by way of a communication to the Member
     States. That applies a fortiori in so far as the question of
     supra-Länder burdens are of great political and legal
     significance in other Member States too, in particular             Pleas in law and main arguments
     those with federal or quasi-federal decentralised adminis-
     trative structures such as, for example, Austria and Spain.
     Beyond that, the question of the conditions on which it
     is possible to assume errors in a Member State as a whole          Article 249 EC, according to which directives are to be binding,
     on the basis of the conclusions of particular studies is of        as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
     vital importance to all the other Member States too.               which they are addressed, implies an obligation for the Member
                                                                        States to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid
                                                                        down in the directives. That time-limit expired on 1 July 2000
—    Infringement of Article 10 EC. The duty of loyal co-               without the Italian Republic having enacted the provisions
     operation to which the Community institutions are                  necessary to comply with the directive mentioned in the
     subject involves a duty to take into account the underlying        Commissions pleadings.
     administrative structures of the Member States. Respect
     for the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany is
     divided into autonomous Länder requires that financial             (1) OJ L 121 of 11.5.1999, p. 13.
     corrections in respect of individual Länder can only be
     made where the EAGGF has reached its own conclusions
     as to a breach of Community law to the detriment of the
     Community budget in those Länder.
(1) Commission Decision 2001/557/EC (OJ L 200, 25.7.2001, p. 28).
                                                                        Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-351/01)
Action brought on 17 September 2001 by the Com-                                                 (2001/C 317/32)
mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                            Republic
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 Septem-
                         (Case C-350/01)                                ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agents, with an address
                         (2001/C 317/31)                                for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Septem-
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                              and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
acting as Agents.
                                                                              Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                              Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the
                                                                              profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   State other than that in which the qualification was
                                                                              obtained (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
—    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  obligations under that directive; and
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating             2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-557/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/7

         Action brought on 29 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-557/10)
   2011/C 38/08
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. França, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, with regard to transposition of the first railway package, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC (1) of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways (as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC) (2), Article 7(3) of Directive 91/440/EEC and Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification,

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

         Management independence

   Article 5(3) of Directive 91/440 contains a list of decisions that railway undertakings must be able to take without State interference. These include decisions relating to staff, assets and own procurement. These decisions must be taken in the context of the general policy guidelines determined by the State. However, in Portugal, with regard to the public undertaking CP, the State not only lays down general strategic guidelines for the acquisition and disposal of holdings in other companies, but also requires individual decisions to acquire or dispose of holdings in the capital of companies to be subject to the approval of the government. For these reasons, the Commission considers that Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3) of Directive 91/440 (as amended).

         Tariffs for access to railway infrastructure

   Under Articles 7(3) of Directive 91/440 (as amended) and 6(1) of Directive 2001/14, Member States are to lay down conditions to ensure that the accounts of the railway infrastructure manager are balanced. In Portugal, however, income from infrastructure charges, State funding and other income from commercial activities is insufficient to balance the accounts of the infrastructure manager, the public undertaking REFER E.P. For these reasons, the Commission considers that Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 91/440 (as amended) and 6(1) of Directive 2001/14.

      (1)  OJ L 1991 237, p. 25

      (2)  OJ L 2001 75, p. 1

      (3)  OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29


title: Case T-191/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BUDWEISER — Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 — Infringement of rights of defence — Statement of reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER)
   (Case T-191/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BUDWEISER - Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Infringement of rights of defence - Statement of reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
   2009/C 113/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Čermák, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2007 (Case R 299/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Anheuser-Busch, Inc. to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of OHIM and Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-302/07: Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Motopress v OHIM — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (BUZZ!)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/22

         Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Motopress v OHIM — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (BUZZ!)
   (Case T-302/07)
   (2007/C 235/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Motopress Werbe- und Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
   Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 June 2007 (Appeal No R 1468/2006-2) to the extent required in order to grant the opposition to trade mark Application No 4 441 044;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘BUZZ!’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28 and 41 (Application No 4 441 044).

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Austrian word mark ‘BUZZ!’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35 and 38.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) caused by disregard of evidence of the existence of the mark on which opposition is based.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case F-3/10: Action brought on 15 January 2010 — AB v European Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/69

         Action brought on 15 January 2010 — AB v European Commission
   (Case F-3/10)
   2010/C 100/100
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AB (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas)

      Defendant: European Commission

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of Decision of the EC Delegation in Laos, dated February 4th 2009 by which the Applicant was informed that his employment contract as contract agent would not be renewed and the Decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment in response to the complaint.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Cancel the contested decisions so that the applicant will be reinstated into the General Direction RELEX or into the European External Action Service, which will be established as of 1st April 2010;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.