title: Case C-473/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Eulitz GbR Thomas und Marion Eulitz v Finanzamt Dresden I (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(j) — Exemption — Tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education — Services provided by an independent teacher in the context of continuing professional training courses organised by a separate entity)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Eulitz GbR Thomas und Marion Eulitz v Finanzamt Dresden I
   (Case C-473/08) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(1)(j) - Exemption - Tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education - Services provided by an independent teacher in the context of continuing professional training courses organised by a separate entity)
   2010/C 63/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sächsisches Finanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ingenieurbüro Eulitz GbR Thomas and Marion Eulitz

      Defendant: Finanzamt Dresden I

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sächsisches Finanzgericht — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(j) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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) — Exemption for ‘tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education’ — Teaching given by a graduate engineer on advanced training courses provided by a private school for the award of post-university specialist qualifications in preventive fire protection to engineers and architects — Supply of teaching services on a continuous basis and performance in parallel of management tasks on certain training courses — Receipt of fees even where courses cancelled in the absence of enrolled students

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13A(1)(j) of the 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 must be interpreted as meaning that teaching work which a graduate engineer performs at an education institute established as a private-law association for participants in advanced training courses — culminating in an examination — who already have at least a university or higher technical college qualification as an architect or an engineer or who have an equivalent education can constitute ‘tuition … covering school or university education’ within the meaning of that provision. Activities other than teaching in the strict sense can also constitute such tuition, provided that they are carried out, essentially, in the context of the transfer of knowledge and skills between a teacher and pupils or students and cover school or university education. It is for the referring court, if need be, to ascertain whether all the activities at issue in the main proceedings are ‘tuition’ covering ‘school or university education’ within the meaning of that provision.

               2.

               Article 13A(1)(j) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a person such as Mr Eulitz, a partner in the claimant in the main proceedings, who performs teaching work for training courses offered by another body, cannot be regarded as having given tuition ‘privately’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.02.2009.


title: Case T-622/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — Deere v EUIPO (EXHAUST-GARD) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark EXHAUST-GARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — Deere v EUIPO (EXHAUST-GARD)
   (Case T-622/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark EXHAUST-GARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 195/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deere & Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by N. Weber and T. Heitmann, and subsequently by N. Weber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2015 (Case R 196/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EXHAUST-GARD as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deere & Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Case C-181/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Administrative Court), Melun (Fifth Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 3 December 1998 in the case of Sanofi Winthrop SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Val-de-Marne

text:
C 188/24              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgericht-              on 14 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sanofi
shof by order of that court of 25 March 1999 in the case              Winthrop SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Val-de-Marne,
of Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG against Zentrale                    on the validity, in the light of the principle of proportionality,
        zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.                    of Council Decision 89/847/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising
                                                                      the French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the
                                                                      second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Direc-
                        (Case C-169/99)                               tive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                      Member States relating to turnover taxes. (1)
                        (1999/C 188/53)
                                                                      (1) OJ L 239, p. 21.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) — First Civil Chamber of 25 March
1999, received at the Court Registry on 5 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH &
Co. KG against Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbew-
erbs e.V. on the following question:                                         Removal from the register of Case C-25/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/55)
Is the term ‘practical reasons’ in the second sentence of
Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the                By order of 22 March 1999 the President of the Court of
approximation of the laws of the Member State relating to             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
cosmetic products (1) to be interpreted as also permitting the        from the register of Case C-25/98: (reference for a preliminary
inclusion of prescribed warnings in several languages, where          ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Santiago de Compost-
the manufacturer or marketer of cosmetic products considers           ela): Dorinda Teresa López Tourı́s v Instituto Nacional de
it desirable on economic grounds and to enhance the market-           Empleo (INEM) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
ability of the products in the Community, if as a result the full     (INSS).
warning appears in a clearly legible format on an enclosed
leaflet only, with the packaging and container simply fur-
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.
nishing abbreviated information for lack of space? Specifically,
is it permissible for the packaging and container to carry not
the full warning but only abbreviated information where a
company, for the reasons given above, considers it desirable
to market its products in a uniform getup in the languages of
the nine different countries where the product is sold (which
include eight EU Member States)?
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-32/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/56)
( 1) (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169) as amended by Council Directive
     88/667/EEC (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46).                               By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-32/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif (Administrative Court), Melun (Fifth
Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 3 Decem-
ber 1998 in the case of Sanofi Winthrop SA v Directeur                       Removal from the register of Case C-227/98 (1)
             des Services Fiscaux de Val-de-Marne
                                                                                (1999/C 188/57)
                        (Case C-181/99)                               By order of 15 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (1999/C 188/54)                               from the register of Case C-227/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Ireland.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admini-
stratif (Administrative Court), Melun (Fifth Chamber), France,
of 3 December 1998, which was received at the Court Registry


title: Case C-366/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/10

         Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-366/11)
   2011/C 298/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Hadjiyiannis and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not having prepared, by 22 December 2009, river basin district management plans (both for river basin districts lying entirely within its territory and for international river basin districts) and by not having communicated to the Commission, by 22 March 2010, a copy of the draft river basin district management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. (1) In addition, by having not commenced, by 22 December 2008 at the latest, the public information and consultation procedure concerning the draft river basin district management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive, and

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for implementation of Directive 200/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council expired on 22 December 2003. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had still not taken all the measures necessary to implement the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case T-458/09: Action brought on 13 November 2009 — Slovak Telekom v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/36

         Action brought on 13 November 2009 — Slovak Telekom v Commission
   (Case T-458/09)
   2010/C 11/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Telekom a.s. (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: M. Maier, L. Kjølbye and D. Geradin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 6840 of 3 September 2009 ordering it, in accordance with Articles 18(3) and 24(1) of Council Regulation 1/2003 (1) to provide the information in the framework of the Case COMP/39523 — Slovak Telekom relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC and imposing the periodic penalties in case of non compliance with the decision.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, the applicant argues that the contested decision is in breach of Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 regarding the information covering a period that predates the Slovak Republic’s accession to the EU. In the applicant’s opinion, prior to this date the Commission did not have power to apply the EC law to conduct engaged in within the territory of the Slovak Republic; as a consequence, it is not entitled to use its power of investigation enshrined in this article to obtain information pertaining to that same period.
   Second, applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principle of procedural fairness enshrined in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Commission’s investigation into the applicant’s conduct during a period where EC law was not applicable and it was under no obligation to comply with these rules may be prejudicial to the applicant.
   Third, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality as reflected in Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003, according to which the Commission is empowered to require undertakings to provide all necessary information. In this regard, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to establish the required link between the requested pre-accession information and the allegedly illegal conduct after 1 May 2004. As a result, in the applicant's opinion, information or documents pertaining to the pre-accession period are not necessary in order to enable the Commission to assess whether the applicant’s post-accession conduct complies with the EC law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty; OJ L 1, p. 1


title: Case C-354/99: Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
4.12.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/25
— insofar as it is held that Article 4 of Regulation No 1534/95         The appellant claims that the Court should:
    is not of individual concern to the appellants, and the
    fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now,              1. Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it declared
    after amendment, Article 230 EC), as interpreted by the                 inadmissible the action brought by the appellants for
    case-law of the Court of Justice, is thereby breached;                  annulment of Regulation No 1534/95 (1), specifically
                                                                            Article 1(f) thereof, and for a declaration that Regulation
                                                                            No 1785/81 (2), specifically Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof, is
                                                                            unlawful;
The appellants submit that the decision of the Court of First
Instance is flawed and erroneous and therefore incompatible
                                                                        2. Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it ordered
with Community rules.                                                       the appellants to pay the costs incurred by the Council;
                                                                        3. Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
                                                                            ruling on the application made in Case T-168/95 for
(1) OJ 1995 L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 11.                                      annulment of Regulation (EEC) No 1534/95, specifically
(2) OJ 1995 L 110 of 17.5.1995, p. 1.                                       Article 1(f) thereof, and for a declaration that Regulation
(3) OJ 1981 L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.                                        (EEC) No 1785/81, specifically Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof,
                                                                            is unlawful;
                                                                        4. Should the Court of Justice deem it appropriate to
                                                                            adjudicate on the merits of Case T-168/95, in accordance
                                                                            with Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, admit
                                                                            the oral and written pleadings specifically related thereto;
                                                                        5. Order the Council to pay the costs.
Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by Società Eridan-                  Pleas and main arguments
ia SpA, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agoindustriale SpA
(ISI), Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of Società Esercizi               As grounds for the present appeal, the appellants allege various
Commerciali Industriali SpA (SECI), Sadam Castiglionese                 infringements of Community law by the Court of First Instance.
SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Società Zuccherificio del                       In particular, they maintain that, in finding that the applicants
Molise SpA and Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                  were not individually concerned by Article 1(f) of the contested
SpA (SFIR) against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999                Regulation, the Court of First Instance infringed the fourth
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  paragraph of Article 230 EC (formerly Article 173 of the EC
the European Communities in Case T-168/95 between                       Treaty) as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others and
the Council of the European Union, supported by the
        Commission of the European Communities                          The appellants maintain that the judgment under appeal is
                                                                        flawed and erroneous, hence incompatible with Community
                                                                        law.
                       (Case C-352/99 P)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 11.
                        (1999/C 352/38)                                 (2) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-168/95 between Società Eridania Spa and Others and the
Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission,
was brought before the Court of Justice on 22 September
1999 by Società Eridania SpA, whose registered office is in
Genoa, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA (ISI),        Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
whose registered office is in Padua, Sadam Zuccherifici, a                 mission of the European Communities against Ireland
division of Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA (SECI),
whose registered office is in Bologna, Sadam Castiglionese SpA                                  (Case C-354/99)
and Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose registered offices are in
Bologna, Società Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose regis-
tered office is at Termoli, and Società Fondiaria Industriale                                   (1999/C 352/39)
Romagnola SpA (SFIR), whose registered office is at Cesena,
incorporating, following a merger, Ponteco Zuccheri SpA,                An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
whose registered office is also at Cesena, all represented by           Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 1999
Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor with a right of audience before             by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
the High Court of Ireland, and Ivano Vigliotti, of the Genoa            by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie Adélaide,                   Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
L-2128 Luxembourg.                                                      Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/26                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.12.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
     ensure a correct transposition of the notion ‘experiment’            Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
     as defined in Article 2 of Directive 86/609/EEC (1) and to           a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct                  upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
     transposition of Articles 11 and 12 of Directive                     on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
     86/609/EEC concerning the approximation of the laws,                 laid down in the directive. That period expired on 30 June
     regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
     States regarding the protection of animals used for exper-           to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
     imental and other scientific purposes and in failing to have         the Commission.
     an adequate system of penalties for non-compliance with
     the requirements of Directive 86/609/EEC, Ireland has                (1) Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
     failed to comply with Directive 86/609/EEC and in particu-               of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the
     lar Article 25 thereof and with its obligations under the                Member States relating to measures against the emission of
     Treaty and in particular Article 10 thereof                              gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion
                                                                              engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (OJ L 59 of
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             27.2.1998, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the Irish legislation fails to
achieve a correct transposal of directive 86/609/EEC because
it covered a narrower range of experiments than the directive,
because of a lack of coherence between the old and new                    Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Italian
provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, because of a                      Republic against Council of the European Union
failure to specify who or what is covered by certain key
concepts, because of a failure to establish procedures, and
because of inadequate penalty provisions.                                                           (Case C-357/99)
(1) Council Directive of 24 November 1986, on the approximation                                     (1999/C 352/41)
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
    States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental
    and other scientific purposes, OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                          An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice on 23 September 1999 by
                                                                          the Italian Republic, represented by its Agent Professor
                                                                          Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello
                                                                          Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
                                                                          Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaide.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                          — Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation No 1404/99 (1) in
                                                                               so far as it fails to fix the derived intervention price for
                          (Case C-355/99)                                      white sugar for all areas of Italy for the sugar-marketing
                                                                               year 1999-2000, and also Article 1(2) of Council Regu-
                          (1999/C 352/40)                                      lation No 1403/99 (2) in so far as it fixes the intervention
                                                                               price for Italy as well;
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 1999                  — Order the Council to pay the costs.
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos             Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                         (1) The Council infringed Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic
                                                                               regulation, Regulation No 1785/81 (3), by fixing inter-
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                    vention prices in June 1999 whereas it should have done
                                                                               so before August 1998.
1. declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               (2) Regulation No 1404/99 gives no statement of reasons for
     comply fully with European Parliament and Council Direc-                  fixing the derived intervention price for five other Member
     tive 97/68/EC (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations           States without doing so for Italy. Nor are any reasons given
     under that Directive, and                                                 in Regulation No 1403/99 regarding the fixing of the
                                                                               intervention price. The contested regulations are therefore
2. order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             vitiated by the lack of any statement of reasons.


title: Case C-72/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom) made on 18 February 2015 — OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom) made on 18 February 2015 — OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority
   (Case C-72/15)
   (2015/C 155/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OJSC Rosneft Oil Company

      Defendants: Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority

      Questions referred

   The questions referred concern Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP (2) and Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP (3) (collectively, ‘the Decision’) and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (4), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (5) and Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 (6) (collectively, ‘the EU Regulation’). They are the following:

               1)

               Having regard in particular to Article 19(1) TEU, Article 24 TEU, Article 40 TEU, Article 47 EUCFR and Article 275, second paragraph, TFEU does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the validity of Article 1(2)(b)-(d), Article 1(3), Article 4, Article 4(a), Article 7 and Annexe III of the Decision?

               2)

                           (a)

                           Are one or more of the following provisions (‘the Relevant Measures’) of the EU Regulation and, to the extent that the Court has jurisdiction, the Decision invalid:

                                       i)

                                       Article 4 and Article 4a of the Decision;

                                       ii)

                                       Articles 3, 3a, 4(3)-4(4) and Annex II of the EU Regulation; (together, ‘the Oil Sector Provisions’);

                                       iii)

                                       Articles 1(2)(b)-(d) and 1(3) and Annex III of the Decision;

                                       iv)

                                       Articles 5(2)(b)-(d), 5(3) and Annex VI of the EU Regulation; (together, ‘the Securities and Lending Provisions’);

                                       v)

                                       Article 7 of the Decision; and

                                       vi)

                                       Article 11 of the EU Regulation.

               2)

                           (b)

                           In so far as the Relevant Measures are valid, is it contrary to the principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa for a Member State to impose criminal penalties, pursuant to Article 8 of the EU Regulation, before the scope of the relevant offence has been sufficiently clarified by the Court of Justice?

               3)

               In so far as the relevant prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Question 2(a) are valid:

                           a)

                           Does the term ‘'financial assistance’ in Article 4(3) of the EU Regulation include the processing of a payment by a bank or other financial institution?

                           b)

                           Does Article 5 of the EU Regulation prohibit the issuing of, or other dealings with, Global Depositary Receipts (‘GDRs’) issued on or after 12 September 2014 under a deposit agreement with one of the entities listed in Annex VI, in respect of shares in one of those entities which were issued before 12 September 2014?

                           c)

                           If the Court considers that there is a lack of clarity which can appropriately be resolved by the Court providing further guidance, what is the correct interpretation of the terms ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ in Article 4 of the Decision and Article 3 and 3a of the EU Regulation? In particular, if the CJEU considers it necessary and appropriate, can it provide a geological interpretation of the term ‘shale’ to be used in implementing the Regulation, and clarify whether the measurement of ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ is to be taken from the point of drilling or elsewhere?

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 229, p. 13.

      (2)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 271, p. 54.

      (3)  Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP OJ L 349, p. 58.

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 229, p. 1.

      (5)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 271, p. 3.

      (6)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 OJ L 349, p. 20.


title: Case T-422/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Sacem v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/31

         Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Sacem v Commission
   (Case T-422/08)
   (2008/C 327/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique (Sacem) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC in so far as it (i) finds, in Article 1, that the applicant had infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by using, in its reciprocal representation agreements, the membership restrictions which were contained in Article 11(II) of the CISAC model contract, or by de facto applying those membership restrictions, and (ii) orders it, as a result, in Article 4.1, to bring that infringement immediately to an end, insofar as it has not already done so, and to communicate to the Commission all the measures it has taken for that purpose;

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC in so far as it (i) finds, in Article 3, that the applicant infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by coordinating the territorial delineations in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society and (ii) orders it, as a result, in Article 4.2, within 120 days of the date of notification of this decision, to bring to an end the infringement and, within that period of time, to communicate to the Commission all the measures it has taken for that purpose;

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC in so far as it orders the applicant to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in Articles 1 and 3, and from any act or conduct having the same, or similar, object or effect.

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In this case, the applicant seeks partial annulment of the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) concerning concerted practices on the conditions of management and licensing of authors' public performance rights of musical works by collecting societies, in the form of membership restrictions applied in the reciprocal representation agreements, as laid down by the model contract of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC model contract) or as applied in practice.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits, first of all, that the Commission infringed its rights of the defence and essential procedural requirements:

               —

               by accusing the applicant, in the contested decision, of participation in an alleged concerted practice while the statement of objections sent to the applicant was based on the theory of network effects; the applicant was therefore not in a position to defend itself over its participation in an alleged concerted practice;

               —

               by failing to provide reasons for maintaining against the applicant the complaints relating to the membership restrictions which were contained in the reciprocal representation agreements entered into between European societies of authors or applied de facto by those societies, whereas the applicant showed that it had removed those clauses and was not applying them;

               —

               by failing to provide a definition of the activity which was the subject of the contested decision, as regards the infringement relating to an alleged concerted practice and therefore the scope of the decision's directions.

         Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement:

               —

               by accusing the applicant of an infringement by way of the membership clause whereas the applicant showed that it had removed those clauses and was not applying them;

               —

               by committing a manifest error of assessment as regards satellite radio broadcasting, since the societies of authors were each mandated to grant the satellite radio broadcasting operators a multi-territorial authorisation covering the entire footprint of the satellite used to broadcast their programmes;

               —

               by using an inaccurate market definition;

               —

               by accusing the applicant of participation in an alleged concerted practice without providing evidence of it;

               —

               by concluding that there was a concerted practice whereas the alleged concerted behaviour between societies of authors could not have limited competition;

               —

               by ordering the societies of authors to refrain from ‘any act or conduct having the same, or similar, object or effect’ to the alleged concerted practices which led to the territorial limitations contained in the reciprocal representation agreements while asserting that each society was free to determine bilaterally the scope of the reciprocal representation agreements entered into by them, on the ground that those contradictions undermine legal certainty.


title: Case T-146/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — United Technologies v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/30

         Action brought on 7 May 2007 — United Technologies v Commission
   (Case T-146/07)
   (2007/C 155/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: United Technologies Corp. (Hartford, United States) (represented by: A. Winckler, lawyer, and J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on UTC pursuant to the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay UTC's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators), on the basis of which the applicant, among other undertakings were held liable for participating in four single, complex and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) EC through the sharing of markets by virtue of agreeing and/or concerting to allocate tenders and contracts for the sale, installation, service and modernisation of elevators and escalators.
   In support of its application, the applicant first of all submits that the Commission wrongly held that mere legal ownership of a wholly owned subsidiary justifies a finding of parental liability. The applicant alleges in this connection that i) Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) requires evidence of intention or negligence, ii) that the parent company has to exercise actual control over the subsidiary's commercial policy during the infringement period or be aware of the conduct and do nothing to terminate it, and iii) that the parent company's liability for its subsidiaries' antitrust infringements must be based on its actual behaviour and not the ability to influence.
   The applicant thereafter contends that it has rebutted any presumption of liability as its subsidiaries autonomously determined their day-to-day commercial conduct and the relevant employees disobeyed instructions after the applicant had taken every reasonable step to ensure compliance with the competition rules. Furthermore the Commission failed, according to the applicant, to state reasons for its finding that the applicant did not rebut the presumption of liability.
   The applicant moreover alleges that the 70 % increase of the fine imposed on the applicant for size and deterrence is unjustified and disproportionate.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment in holding the applicant responsible for the illegal conduct of its subsidiaries whereas the Commission applied a different legal test to find that Mitsubishi Electric Corporation Japan was not responsible for the conduct of its subsidiary.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-405/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — The European Union’s own resources — Procedures relating to the collection of import or export duties — Delay in establishing the own resources relating to those rights)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-405/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - The European Union’s own resources - Procedures relating to the collection of import or export duties - Delay in establishing the own resources relating to those rights)
   2011/C 160/06
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and M. Pere, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: B. Klein, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) and of Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Failure to comply, where there is post-clearance recovery, with the time limits laid down for entry in the accounts and the establishment of the Communities’ own resources

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by applying an administrative procedure according to which the European Union’s own resources are established only after the debtor has been granted a period of at least 15 days to submit his observations and by not complying, where there is post-clearance recovery, with the time limits laid down for the entry of those resources, which has the consequence of delaying payment of them, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources and under Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-162/98: Action brought on 6 October 1998 by South Wales Small Mines Association against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 174/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.6.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               — order the Commission to pay the cossts of the action,
                              INSTANCE                                         including those of the applicant.
                        of 10 February 1999
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-211/98 R Claude Willeme v Commission of the
                      European Communities                                 The pleas and main arguments are similar to those invoked in
                                                                           Case T-148/98.
(Procedure for interim relief — Article 88 of the Staff
          Regulations — Prima facie case No urgency)
                            (1999/C 174/13)
                     (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Charlotte
                                                                           Rudolph against Commission of the European Communi-
In Case T-211/98 R Claude Willeme, an official of the                                                     ties
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of                                        (Case T-197/98)
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi                                           (1999/C 174/15)
Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application for suspension of
the operation of the decision of 16 December 1998 by which
the appointing authority suspended the applicant from his                                     (Language of the case: French)
duties with immediate effect and withheld a sum equal to one
half of his basic salary from his remuneration — the President             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 10 February            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999 in which he:                                                          European Communities on 15 December 1998 by Charlotte
                                                                           Rudolph, residing in Brussels, represented by Olivier Eben, of
1. Dismisses the application for interim relief;                           the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du Fossé, Esch-sur-
2. Reserves the costs.                                                     Alzette.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — Declare that the medical examination which the applicant
                                                                               underwent for recruitment purposes on 6 February 1995
                                                                               cannot be regarded as null and void;
Action brought on 6 October 1998 by South Wales
Small Mines Association against the Commission of the                      — Declare that Mrs Rudolph is not obliged to undergo a
                      European Communities                                     further medical examination for recruitment purposes in
                                                                               order to verify her fitness for work;
                            (Case T-162/98)
                                                                           — Annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               7 December 1998, Article 1 of which annulled the
                            (1999/C 174/14)                                    appointing authority’s decisions of 3 July 1995 and of
                                                                               14 December 1995 pursuant to which Mrs Rudolph was
                                                                               appointed first as a probationary official and then as an
                    (Language of the case: English)                            official and Article 2 of which terminated Mrs Rudolph’s
                                                                               employment as from 1 February 1999;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 — Declare that Mrs Rudolph must be reinstated and that the
European Communities on 6 October 1998 by South Wales                          arrears of her salary must be paid to her, together with
Small Mines Association, represented by T. Llewellyn Jones,                    interest at the rate of 10% as from the date of cessation of
Thomas Sharpe QC and Mark Brealey with an address for                          payment of her salary;
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13,
rue Aldringen.                                                             — Order the Commission to pay Mrs Rudolph the sum of
                                                                               ECU 100 000 in respect of misuse of powers and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    non-material damage;
— annul the Commission decision of 30 July 1998 rejecting                  — So far as necessary, annul:
     a complaint made by the applicant on 5 June 1990
     relating, inter alia, to systematic price discrimination of the           — the Commission decision dated 17 November 1997,
     CEGB and its successor corporations, National Power and                        sent to the applicant on 12 January 1998 and received
     PowerGen contrary to Article 4(b) ECSC; and                                    by her on 14 January 1998;


title: Case T-300/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Puertas Proma (PROMAT) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT — Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Puertas Proma (PROMAT)
   (Case T-300/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT - Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 272/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J.Krenzel and S.Beckmann, lawyers).

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.Schneider, acting as Agent).

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Proma SAL (Villacañas, Spain).
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1058/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Puertas Proma SAL and Promat GmbH.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/2

         Lists to be used for determining the composition of the formations of the Court
   (2004/C 156/04)
   At its meeting on 14 May 2004, the Court drew up the list referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber, as follows:

               Mr Gulmann

               Mr Levits

               Mr La Pergola

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr Puissochet

               Mr Klučka

               Mr Schintgen

               Mr Malenovský

               Ms Macken

               Mr Ilešič

               Ms Colneric

               Mr Borg-Barthet

               Mr von Bahr

               Mr Arestis

               Mr Cunha Rodrigues

               Mr Juhász

               Ms Silva de Lapuerta

               Mr Kūris

               Mr Lenaerts

               Mr Makarczyk

               Mr Schiemann

         At its meeting on 14 May 2004, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges, as follows:
   For the First Chamber:
   Ms Colneric
   Mr Levits
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues
   Mr Ilešič
   Mr Lenaerts
   Mr Juhász
   Mr Schiemann
   For the Second Chamber:
   Mr Gulmann
   Mr Klučka
   Mr Schintgen
   Mr Arestis
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta
   Mr Kūris
   Mr Makarczyk
   For the Third Chamber:
   Mr La Pergola
   Mr Lõhmus
   Mr Puissochet
   Mr Malenovský
   Ms Macken
   Mr Borg-Barthet
   Mr von Bahr
   At its meeting on 14 May 2004, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges, as follows:
   For the Fourth Chamber:
   Ms Colneric
   Mr Lenaerts
   Mr Schiemann
   Mr Juhász
   Mr Ilešič
   Mr Levits
   For the Fifth Chamber:
   Mr Schintgen
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta
   Mr Makarczyk
   Mr Kūris
   Mr Arestis
   Mr Klučka
   For the Sixth Chamber:
   Mr La Pergola
   Ms Macken
   Mr von Bahr
   Mr Borg-Barthet
   Mr Malenovský
   Mr Lõhmus


title: Case T-97/02: Action brought on 2 April 2002 by Prodromos Mavridis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 131/24              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     annul the Commission’s decision establishing the calcu-
      lation of the pension rights acquired by the applicant
      prior to his entry into service and transferred to the            Pleas in law and main arguments
      Community pension scheme pursuant to Article 11(2) of
      Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                        In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                        Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        equal treatment and career progression. According to the
                                                                        applicant, his merits were not taken fully into consideration in
                                                                        the context of the 2001 promotions procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant pleads non-compliance
with the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and
infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
Regulations and of the general provisions for the implemen-             Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A. against
tation thereof, as well as breach of the principle of equal                      Commission of the European Communities
treatment. According to the applicant, the calculation should
have been carried out on the basis of his situation at the time                                 (Case T-109/02)
of entering the service of the Communities as a member of the
temporary staff, and not on the basis of his situation at the
time of his being appointed as an established official, some                                    (2002/C 131/46)
nine years later.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A.,
                                                                        established in Puteaux (France), represented by Robert Saint-
Action brought on 2 April 2002 by Prodromos Mavridis                    Esteben and Hugues Calvet, lawyers, with an address for service
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-97/02)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2002/C 131/45)                                 —     Annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Commission decision of
                                                                              20 December 2001, reference COMP/E-1/36212 —
                                                                              Carbonless paper, relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                  (Language of the case: French)                              Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                                                                              Agreement, in so far as they refer to Bolloré;
                                                                        —     In the alternative, reduce very substantially the amount
                                                                              of the fine imposed on Bolloré by Article 3 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     decision;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 April 2002 by Prodromos
                                                                        —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Mavridis, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to promote the                The applicant contests the Commission’s decision finding that
      applicant to grade A 5 in the context of the 2001                 it took part in an agreement contrary to Article 81(1) of the
      promotions procedure;                                             EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case C-315/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Ghent (Belgium)): 1. Flip CV 2. O. Verdegem NV v. Belgian State (Agriculture - Control of classical swine fever - Compensation for owners whose pigs have been slaughtered)

text:
No C 137/4         I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3 . 6. 95
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      (Third Chamber )
                        of 6 April 1995                                                       of 6 April 1995
in Case C-3 10/93 P: BPB Industries Pic and British Gypsum          in Case C-3 15/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
   Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities ( : )              the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Ghent (Belgium )): 1 . Flip
(Competition — Abuse ofa dominantposition — Exclusive                         CV 2. O. Verdegem NV v. Belgian State ( J )
purchase contract — Loyalty payments — Effect on trade              (Agriculture — Control of classical swine fever —
between Member States — Attributability of the                      Compensation for owners whose pigs have been
                          infringement)                                                          slaughtered)
                         ( 95/C 137/07 )                                                       ( 95/C 137/08 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-3 10/93 P: BPB Industries Pic, a company
governed by English law, established in Slough, United
Kingdom, and British Gypsum Ltd, a company governed by
English law, established in Nottingham, United Kingdom              In Case C-315/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Agents : Michel Waelbroeck, Denis Waelbroeck, and                 of the EEC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg
Gordon Boyd Buchanan Jeffrey) — appeal against the                  ( Court of First Instance ), Ghent ( Belgium ), for a preliminary
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 1 April 1993 in Case              1 . Flip CV 2 . O. Verdegem NV and Belgian State — on the
T-65/89 BPB Industries and British Gypsum v. Commission             interpretation and validity of Commission Decision
[1 993 ] ECR 11-389 , seeking to have that judgment set aside,      88/529/EEC of 7 October 1988 approving the plan for the
the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of          eradication of classical swine fever presented by the
the European Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ),                 Kingdom of Belgium ( 2 ) — the Court (Third Chamber),
supported by Iberian UK Ltd, formerly Iberian Trading               composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
(UK ) Ltd, a company governed by English law, established           Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
in London ( Agents : John E. Pheasant and Simon W. Polito )         Judges;         G.     Tesauro,          Advocate-General;       D.
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of F. A.                    Loutermann-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn            Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , the operative
( Rapporteur ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris and J. L.            part of which is as follows:
Murray, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which it:
                                                                    1 . the applicable Community rules on control of classical
                                                                          swine fever must be interpreted as not requiring Member
                                                                          States to provide for a system of compensation for
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                                 owners whose pigs have been slaughtered by order ofthe
                                                                          national authorities ;
2 . orders the appellants to bear the costs, including those of     2 . examination of the Community rules on the matter has
    the intervener.
                                                                          not revealed any factor of such a kind as to affect their
                                                                          validity.
(') OJ No C 204 , 28 . 7. 1993 .
                                                                    (!) OJ No C 192, 16 . 7. 1993 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 291 , 25 . 10 . 1988 , p . 78 .


title: Case C-369/12: Order of the Court of 15 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel, Brașov — Romania) — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, reprezentant al reclamanților Chițea Constantin și alții v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Validity of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Failure to implement European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/12

         Order of the Court of 15 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel, Brașov — Romania) — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, reprezentant al reclamanților Chițea Constantin și alții v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov
   (Case C-369/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Validity of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   2013/C 108/24
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Brașov

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central

      Defendant: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel, Brașov — Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 20, 21(1) and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Admissibility of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the right of property

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction with regard to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel, Brașov (Romania), made by decision of 27 June 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 March 2000 in Case C-236/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen): Jämställdhetsombudsmannen v Örebro läns landsting (Social policy — Male and female workers — Equal pay for work of equal value — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) — Directive 75/117/EEC — Comparison of a midwife's pay with that of a clinical technician — Taking into account a supplement and a reduction in working time for inconvenient working hours)

text:
C 163/4               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.6.2000
(Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch — Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                           (Sixth Chamber)
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
14 May 1997 in Case T-77/94 VGB and Others v Commission
[1997] ECR II-759, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                                      of 30 March 2000
the other parties to the proceedings being Vereniging van
Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (VGB), Florimex               in Case C-236/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV and M. Verhaar BV, estab-                the Arbetsdomstolen): Jämställdhetsombudsmannen v
lished in Aalsmeer (Netherlands), represented by J.A.M.P.                                    Örebro läns landsting (1)
Keijser, of the Nijmegen Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue
Marie-Adélaïde and Commission of the European Communi-                  (Social policy — Male and female workers — Equal pay for
ties, (Agent: B.J. Drijber) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                work of equal value — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles
composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, acting for the President         117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles
of the Chamber, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur)       136 EC to 143 EC) — Directive 75/117/EEC — Comparison
and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;                   of a midwife’s pay with that of a clinical technician —
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               Taking into account a supplement and a reduction in
judgment on 30 March 2000, in which it:                                         working time for inconvenient working hours)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/06)
1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
2. Orders Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen
     Aalsmeer BA (VBA) to bear its own costs and to pay those of        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten                              in the European Court Reports)
     (VGB), Florimex BV, Inkoop Services Aalsmeer BV and
     M. Verhaar BV relating to the appeal;
                                                                        In Case C-236/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Arbetsdomstolen,
                                                                        Sweden, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                        before that court between Jämställdhetsombudsmannen and
3. Orders Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijpro-           Örebro läns Landsting — on the interpretation of Article 119
     ducten (VGB), Florimex BV, Inkoop Services Aalsmeer BV and         of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have
     M. Verhaar BV to bear their own costs and to pay those             been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and of Council
     of Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen           Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approxi-
     Aalsmeer BA (VBA) relating to the cross-appeal;                    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                        application of the principle of equal pay for men and women
                                                                        (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                        of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its        F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General ; H.A. Rühl,
     own costs.                                                         Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                        on 30 March 2000, in which it ruled:
                                                                        1. The inconvenient-hours supplement is not to be taken into
                                                                            account in calculating the salary which serves as the basis for a
                                                                            pay comparison for the purposes of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.                                                 (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty were replaced by Articles
                                                                            136 EC to 143 EC) and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of
                                                                            10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                            Member States relating to the application of the principle of
                                                                            equal pay for men and women. If a difference in pay between the
                                                                            two groups compared is found to exist, and if the available
                                                                            statistical data indicate that there is a substantially higher
                                                                            proportion of women than men in the disadvantaged group,
                                                                            Article 119 of the Treaty requires the employer to justify the
                                                                            difference by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on
                                                                            grounds of sex.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/5
2. Neither the reduction in working time, by reference to the                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     standard working time for day-work, awarded in respect of work
     performed according to a three-shift roster, nor the value of such
     a reduction, are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of                                   (First Chamber)
     calculating the salary used as the basis for a pay comparison for
     the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117.
     However, such a reduction may constitute an objective reason                                         of 4 April 2000
     unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex such as to
     justify a difference in pay. It is for the employer to show that such
     is in fact the case.
                                                                               in Case C-465/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Oberlandesgericht Köln): Verein gegen Unwesen in
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                          Handel und Gewerbe Köln eV v Adolf Darbo AG (1)
                                                                               (Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Directive
                                                                                79/112/EEC — Strawberryjam — Risk of deception)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (2000/C 163/08)
                             of 4 April 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-269/97: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Council of the European Union (1)
           (Regulation (EC) No 820/97 — Legal basis)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                             (2000/C 163/07)
                                                                               In Case C-465/98, reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                       (Language of the case: French)                          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                               Köln (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                               pending before that court between Verein gegen Unwesen in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         Handel und Gewerbe Köln eV and Adolf Darbo AG — on
                      in the European Court Reports)                           the interpretation of Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Council Directive
                                                                               79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of
In Case C-269/97: Commission of the European Communities                       the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
(Agents: P. van Nuffel and G. Berscheid), supported by the                     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the
European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and E. Waldherr) v                       ultimate consumer (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1) — the Court (First
Council of the European Union (Agents: J.-C. Piris, J. Carbery                 Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,
and M. Sims) — application for annulment of Council                            P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,
Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a                      Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
system for the identification and registration of bovine animals               has given a judgment on 4 April 2000, in which it has ruled:
and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (OJ 1997
L 117, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez
Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),                 Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December
Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,                            1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,                       relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  for sale to the ultimate consumer does not preclude use of the
given a judgment on 4 April 2000, in which it:                                 description ‘naturally pure’ for a strawberry jam which contains the
                                                                               gelling agent pectin and traces or residues of lead, cadmium and
1. Dismisses the application;                                                  pesticides of the following levels: 0.01 mg/kg of lead, 0.008 mg/kg
                                                                               of cadmium, 0.016 mg/kg of procymidone and 0.005 mg/kg of
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the                vinclozolin.
     costs;
3. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2004 in Case C-16/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge): Peak Holding AB v Axolin-Elinor AB (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(1) — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Putting on the market of the goods in the EEA by the proprietor of the trade mark — Concept — Goods offered for sale to consumers and then withdrawn — Sale to an operator established in the EEA with the obligation to put the goods on the market outside the EEA — Resale of the goods to another operator established in the EEA — Marketing in the EEA)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 30 November 2004
   in Case C-16/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge): Peak Holding AB v Axolin-Elinor AB (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 7(1) - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Putting on the market of the goods in the EEA by the proprietor of the trade mark - Concept - Goods offered for sale to consumers and then withdrawn - Sale to an operator established in the EEA with the obligation to put the goods on the market outside the EEA - Resale of the goods to another operator established in the EEA - Marketing in the EEA)
   (2005/C 19/04)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-16/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge (Sweden), made by decision of 19 December 2002, received at the Court on 15 January 2003, in the proceedings between Peak Holding AB and Axolin-Elinor AB, formerly Handelskompaniet Factory Outlet i Löddeköpinge AB – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that goods bearing a trade mark cannot be regarded as having been put on the market in the European Economic Area where the proprietor of the trade mark has imported them into the European Economic Area with a view to selling them there or where he has offered them for sale to consumers in the European Economic Area, in his own shops or those of an associated company, without actually selling them.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the stipulation, in a contract of sale concluded between the proprietor of the trade mark and an operator established in the European Economic Area, of a prohibition on reselling in the European Economic Area does not mean that there is no putting on the market in the European Economic Area within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and thus does not preclude the exhaustion of the proprietor's exclusive rights in the event of resale in the European Economic Area in breach of the prohibition.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Case C-507/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 8 November 2012 — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 8 November 2012 — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-507/12)
   2013/C 26/59
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jessy Saint Prix

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the right of residence conferred upon a ‘worker’ in Article 7 of the Citizenship Directive (1) to be interpreted as applying only to those (i) in an existing employment relationship, (ii) (at least in some circumstances) seeking work, or (iii) covered by the extensions in article 7(3), or is the Article to be interpreted as not precluding the recognition of further persons who remain ‘workers’ for this purpose?

               2.

                           (i)

                           If the latter, does it extend to a woman who reasonably gives up work, or seeking work, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy (and the aftermath of childbirth)?

                           (ii)

                           If so, is she entitled to the benefit of the national law's definition of when it is reasonable for her to do so?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance).
   OJ L 158, p. 77


title: Case F-57/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission
   (Case F-57/15) (1)

   (2016/C 287/47)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 46.


title: Case C-334/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Nordex Food A/S v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Export refunds — Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 — System of export licences — Export declaration submitted without an export licence — Period granted by the customs office of export — Customs documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination — Forged documents — Rectification of irregularities — Application of the penalty referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Nordex Food A/S v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-334/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Export refunds - Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 - System of export licences - Export declaration submitted without an export licence - Period granted by the customs office of export - Customs documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination - Forged documents - Rectification of irregularities - Application of the penalty referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999))
   (2014/C 462/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nordex Food A/S

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2299/2001 of 26 November 2001, read in conjunction with Article 24 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of an export refund in specific circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the export took place without an export licence, whose existence was however established at the time the export declaration was made and which was presented, by the exporter, within the additional period of one week granted for that purpose by the competent customs office.

               2.

               Articles 49 and 50 of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of force majeure, an exporter who has presented, in order to prove the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination, customs documents that are later shown to be forged, may not, after periods laid down in those articles have expired, present, in the course of pending judicial proceedings relating to the grant of the export refund, valid customs documents, even though the grant of the export refund was delayed for reasons other than those relating to the proof of arrival of those goods.

               3.

               On a proper construction of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, the penalty provided for in that provision is incurred when the exporter presented, within the prescribed periods, documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination that were shown to have been forged, even though it is apparent from the valid documents produced during the proceedings that the export refund applied for corresponds to that which would have had to be granted.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T -309/09: Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Sanyō Denki v OHIM — Telefónica O2 Germany (eneloop)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/65

         Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Sanyō Denki v OHIM — Telefónica O2 Germany (eneloop)
   (Case T -309/09)
   2009/C 267/118
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanyō Denki Kabushiki Kaisha (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: M. De Zorti, M. Koch and T. Grimm, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 May 2009 (Case R 794/2008-2);

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘eneloop’ for goods in Class 9 (application No 4620225)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Inter alia, the German word mark ‘LOOP’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 (No 30 416 654,5)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

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


title: Case F-94/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ v Council

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/32

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-94/13)
   2013/C 336/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Marchal, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas and A. Coolen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the accrual of pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 30 January 2013 concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service with the Council,

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 11 June 2013 rejecting his complaint requesting application of the General Implementing Provisions and the actuarial rates in force at the time of his request to transfer his pension rights,

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.