title: Case C-294/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 17 June 2015 — Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 17 June 2015 — Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki
   (Case C-294/15)
   (2015/C 311/23)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Edyta Mikołajczyk

      Defendants: Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are cases relating to annulment of a marriage following the death of one of the spouses within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1)?

               2.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1, does the scope of that regulation extend to an action for annulment of marriage brought by a person other than one of the spouses?

               3.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 2, in actions for annulment of marriage brought by a person other than one of the spouses, may the jurisdiction of the court be based on the grounds mentioned in the fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of the regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case F-14/08: Action brought on 5 February 2008 — X v European Parliament

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/39

         Action brought on 5 February 2008 — X v European Parliament
   (Case F-14/08)
   (2008/C 142/74)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: X (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision by which the European Parliament's Director of Personnel considered that the applicant did not suffer from permanent and total disability making it impossible for her to perform her duties, and annulment of the opinion given by the Invalidity Committee on 27 June 2007.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision by which the European Parliament's Director of Personnel considered that the applicant did not suffer from permanent and total disability making it impossible for her to perform her duties, and annulment of the opinion given by the Invalidity Committee on 27 June 2007;

               —

               that the file should be sent back to the Invalidity Committee for it to take another decision;

               —

               that the European Parliament should be ordered to pay the costs.


title: Case C-38/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 28 January 2011 — Amorim Energia BV v Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 28 January 2011 — Amorim Energia BV v Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública
   (Case C-38/11)
   2011/C 130/16
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amorim Energia BV

      Defendant: Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública

      Question referred

   Do Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU (formerly Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State, such as Articles 46(1), 96(2) and (3), 14(3) and 89 of the Corporation Tax Code, which, in the context of elimination of economic double taxation of distributed profits, while complying with Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990, does not enable shareholder companies resident in another Member State to secure repayment of the tax deducted at source in the same circumstances as shareholder companies resident in Portugal, requiring for that purpose a longer minimum period of share ownership and a minimum but significant shareholding, delaying or rendering impracticable the elimination of economic double taxation?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States
   OJ L 225, p. 6


title: Case T-641/13: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014  — Gemeente Bergen op Zoom v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/58

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Gemeente Bergen op Zoom v Commission
   (Case T-641/13) (1)

   2014/C 303/69
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-96/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — Cwik v Commission (Officials — Evaluation exercise 2001/2002 — Career development report — Application for annulment — Plea of illegality — Manifest errors of assessment — Errors of fact — Psychological harassment — Compensation for damage suffered — Non-material damage)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Cwik v Commission
   (Case T-96/04) (1)

   (Officials - Evaluation exercise 2001/2002 - Career development report - Application for annulment - Plea of illegality - Manifest errors of assessment - Errors of fact - Psychological harassment - Compensation for damage suffered - Non-material damage)
   (2005/C 330/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Michael Cwik (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. de Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission confirming the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and payment of symbolic damages for the non-material damage alleged
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-36/00: Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 135/17
— infringement of Article 218 of the Treaty by the Rules                 withdrew the contested act thereby rendering each application
    of Procedure of the Commission [C(1999)4000] (1), of                 devoid of purpose.
    18 September 1999 in so far as they do not contain
    effective deterrent sanctions to ensure that the Commission          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
    and its departments operate, in accordance with the                  submitted in the above mentioned cases.
    provisions of the EC Treaty, to protect the proper adminis-
    tration of justice. In particular, the Commission is in breach       ( 1) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.
    of the obligation to adopt and maintain in force all                 ( 2) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999, p. 11.
    measures necessary to penalise any persons subject to its            ( 3) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999, p. 28.
    jurisdiction.                                                        ( 4) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 30.
(1) OJ 252 of 25.9.1999, p. 41.
                                                                         Action brought on 24 February 2000 by PlantaVet Ver-
                                                                         trieb Biologischer Tierarzneimittel GmbH against the
                                                                         European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Prod-
Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Sonia Marion                                                        ucts
Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of
                  the European Communities                                                         (Case T-39/00)
                           (Case T-36/00)                                                         (2000/C 135/33)
                          (2000/C 135/32)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Medicinal Products was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 24 February 2000
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                by PlantaVet Vertrieb Biologischer Tierarzneimittel GmbH,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               whose registered office is in Bad Waldsee (Germany), represent-
European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Sonia Marion                 ed by Rüdiger Zuck, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address
Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott Crosby,                for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong,
Solicitor.                                                               4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of 20 January 2000                — annul the Agency’s decisions EMEA/V/BJF/jc./38309/99
    refusing access to the minutes of the VAT Committee                       and EMEA/V/BJF/jc.38311/99 of 20 December 1999 and
    relating to the consultations required by Article 4(4) of                 the decisions of the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
    Sixth VAT Directive prior to the adoption by the United                   Products CVMP/543/99 and CVMP/544/99;
    Kingdom of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 and sections               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    31(2), (4) and Schedule 18 Pt. IV(I) of the 1997 Finance
    Act;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
    to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First        The applicant challenges decisions of the European Agency for
    Instance.                                                            the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and of the Committee
                                                                         for Veterinary Medicinal Products which held it impossible to
                                                                         evaluate the substances Arnica and Symphytum from the point
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          of view of residual toxicity. As a result, those substances
                                                                         cannot be entered in Annexes I to III to Council Regulation
The applicants in the present case challenge the refusal by the          (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community
defendant to allow access to certain documents for which they            procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
have applied under Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,                   veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.
Euratom, of 8 February 1994, on public access to Commission              The applicant markets veterinary medicinal products with
documents (1).                                                           those substances and considers itself affected by the contested
                                                                         decisions. It considers that it provided adequate information
The applicants state in this connection that this application is         for the assessment of residual toxicity and that on the strength
the fourth which they have had to bring against conduct of               of that information classification in Annex 1 or Annex 11
the part of the Commission which has, hitherto, prevented the            should have taken place.
request for access from being considered on the merits. In Cases
T-78/99 (2), T-178/99 (3) and T-356/99 (4) the Commission


title: Case C-473/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2013 — Adala Bero

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2013 — Adala Bero
   (Case C-473/13)
   2013/C 336/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Adala Bero

      Authority involved: Regierungspräsidium Kassel

      Question referred

   Does Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (1) also require a Member State to carry out detentions for the purpose of removal as a rule in specialised detention facilities when such facilities exist in only one part of the federal subdivisions of that Member State but not in others?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-485/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Trento (Civil and Criminal Court, Trento) by order of 6 December 2001 in the case of Francesca Caprini v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A.

text:
16.2.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 44/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello                     Article 47(2) of that regulation) to be granted further
di Genova by order of that court of 15 November 2001                           time and may it fix that duration on the basis of the time
in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and Eurico Italia                       actually taken to obtain and forward the prescribed
                               SpA                                             documentation?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.
                         (Case C-467/01)
                          (2002/C 44/12)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
                                                                         e Penale di Trento (Civil and Criminal Court, Trento) by
                                                                         order of 6 December 2001 in the case of Francesca Caprini
                                                                                v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello di                                     (Case C-485/01)
Genova (Genoa Court of Appeal) by order of 15 November
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 6 December                                     (2002/C 44/13)
2001, on the following questions:
1.   On the basis of the combined provisions of Articles 47(4)           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and 48 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), must it be               European Communities by order of 6 December 2001 by the
     concluded that (a) the further time which may be granted            Tribunale Civile e Penale di Trento, which was received at the
     to an exporter may not in any circumstances exceed the              Court Registry on 14 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
     maximum duration of 18 months; or (b) that, conversely,             in the case of Francesca Caprini v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A. on
     the reduction of 15 % applies only where the ordinary               the following questions:
     time-limit and any extension thereof granted to the
     exporter is exceeded by more than six months?                       Does Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986
                                                                         on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                         to self-employed commercial agents preclude a rule of national
2.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) above is               law which makes the enrolment of a commercial agent in the
     correct, are there, on the basis of the two abovementioned          register of undertakings conditional on that agent’s name
     articles, maximum time-limits — in the light of the                 having been entered in an appropriate register?
     various forms, including those indicated in the grounds
     of this order, which they may take from the Community
     law point of view — within which the extensions of time             (1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.
     may be granted?
3.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
     what are those maximum time-limits and what extensions
     of time are available under the two abovementioned
     articles?                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by decision of 14 December 2001 in the case
                                                                         of Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
4.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
     may a private individual, on the basis of the two                                          (Case C-487/01)
     abovementioned articles, claim a legally protected right
     to the setting of a particular duration (regarded as                                        (2002/C 44/14)
     commensurate with the difficulties of obtaining the
     prescribed documentation) for the extension of time?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
5.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct, may        European Communities by decision of 14 December 2001 by
     the national court, on the basis of the two abovemen-               the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
     tioned articles — if the administrative authority fails to          Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
     grant further time — recognise the exporter’s right (if he          17 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     has acted diligently to obtain the documents and forward            Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the
     them within the period of 12 months laid down in                    following questions:


title: Case T-483/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Sepro Europe v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance flurprimidol — Non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 — Accelerated assessment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/17

         Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Sepro Europe v Commission
   (Case T-483/11) (1)

   (Plant-protection products - Active substance flurprimidol - Non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 - Accelerated assessment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 304/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sepro Europe Ltd (Harrogate, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/328/EU of 1 June 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2011 L 153, p. 192)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sepro Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case C-360/02 P: Appeal brought on 8 October 2002 by Carlo Ripa di Meana against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo Ripa di Meana and European Parliament

text:
7.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 305/13
both resident in Belgium, when the couple are insured on a                 Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo Ripa di Meana
voluntary basis under the Belgian social security scheme in                and European Parliament was brought before the Court of
respect of health insurance?                                               Justice of the European Communities on 8 October 2002 by
                                                                           Carlo Ripa di Meana, represented by Wilma Viscardini and
                                                                           Gabriele Donà.
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978
     concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between
     the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
     (OJ L 264 of 27.9.1978, p. 1).                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —      set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                9 July 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance of the European Communities in Case T-127/01
                                                                                between Carlo Ripa di Meana and European Parliament;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                     —      declare admissible the application in Case T-127/01;
Modena, Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari by
order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the Criminal                        —      refer Case T-127/01 back to the Court of First Instance
             Proceedings against Christian Lanzotti                               for judgment on the substance;
                          (Case C-359/02)                                  —      order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
                                                                                appeal and of proceedings at first instance on the matter
                          (2002/C 305/21)                                         of admissibility.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           Pleas and main arguments
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Modena,
Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari (Modena District
Court, Office of the Investigating Judge) of 27 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a                    By order of 9 July 2002, the Court of First Instance upheld the
preliminary ruling in the Criminal Proceedings against Chris-              objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament
tian Lanzotti on the following question:                                   in Case T-127/01 and, accordingly, declared inadmissible the
                                                                           application made by Mr Ripa di Meana for annulment of the
Are national rules such as Articles 4(1), 4a and 4b of the Italian         decision of the European Parliament of 26 March 2001
Law No 401/89, as amended by Article 37 of Law No 388/00,                  suspending the applicant’s pension as former Member of the
which prohibit and make subject to criminal penalties the                  European Parliament following his election to the legislative
pursuit by any person in any place of the activities of taking,            assembly for the Region of Umbria.
accepting, booking and forwarding bets placed, in particular
on sporting events, without obtaining the prior authorisation
and licence required by domestic law, compatible with                      In particular, the Court of First Instance held Mr Ripa di
Article 43 et seq. and Article 49 et seq. EC on the freedom                Meana’s application to be out of time inasmuch as the letter of
of establishment and the freedom to provide cross-border                   26 March 2001, not containing any new information not
services?                                                                  contained in the letter of the European Parliament of 26 Janu-
                                                                           ary 2001 and since it was not the result of a re-examination of
                                                                           the applicant’s situation in the light of factual and legal
                                                                           arguments put forward by him in his letter of 15 March
                                                                           2001, was to be deemed ‘merely confirming the decision of
                                                                           26 January 2001’.
Appeal brought on 8 October 2002 by Carlo Ripa di
Meana against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the                    Mr Ripa di Meana is challenging that order on the ground that
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       it is vitiated by a number of manifest errors of law.
European Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo
            Ripa di Meana and European Parliament
                                                                           In particular, Mr Ripa di Meana claims that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance: committed an error of procedure; infringed the rights
                         (Case C-360/02 P)                                 of the defence; attributed the wrong legal classification to the
                                                                           letters of 26 January 2001 and 26 March 2001. Furthermore,
                          (2002/C 305/22)                                  the Court of First Instance misapplied Community case-law
                                                                           concerning confirmatory acts and did not take account of
                                                                           case-law regarding ‘excusable error’.
An appeal against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case T-132/15: Action brought on 12 June 2015 — IR v OHIM — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/48

         Action brought on 12 June 2015 — IR v OHIM — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)
   (Case T-132/15)
   (2015/C 311/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: IR (Caen, France) (represented by: C. de Marguerye, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘popchrono’ — Community trade mark No 4 177 267

      Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2015 in Case R 217/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               receive its conclusions;

               —

               rescind the decision of 13 February 2015 of the Board of Appeal;

               —

               confirm the property rights of the trademark POPCHRONO;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of the right to be heard;

               —

               Narrow interpretation of ‘genuine use’ by the Board of Appeal;

               —

               Resumption of genuine use of a community trademark in question should have been examined by OHIM according to pieces submitted by the applicant, including a prior license agreement for more than three months before the introduction of the revocation request;

               —

               OHIM’s failure to take account of the contempt of elementary rules of competition and not considered the will of obstruction of a party against the other party.


title: Case T-398/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — TVR Italia (TVR ITALIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark TVR ITALIA — Earlier national and Community word marks TVR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Revocation proceedings — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — TVR Italia (TVR ITALIA)
   (Case T-398/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark TVR ITALIA - Earlier national and Community word marks TVR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Revocation proceedings - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Whiteley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by G. Schneider and S. Hanne, and subsequently by J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: TVR Italia Srl (Canosa, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2013 (Case R 823/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Muadib Beteiligung GmbH and TVR Italia Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 May 2013 (Case R 823/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Muadib Beteiligung GmbH and TVR Italia Srl;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and TVR Italia Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-11/08: Action brought on 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/37

         Action brought on 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-11/08)
   (2008/C 51/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson, Agent)

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

               —

               declare that, by providing in its national law that inspectors who do not fulfil the criteria in Annex VII of Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control of shipping (1) are accepted if they are employed by the competent authority for port State control on 1 May 2004, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1) and Annex VII of the Directive;

               —

               order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 12(1) of the directive provides, as a main rule, that inspections shall be carried out only by inspectors who fulfil the qualification criteria set out in Annex VII thereof. Paragraph 5 of Annex VII provides, as an exception to this main rule, that inspectors who do not fulfil the criteria in paragraphs 1-4 thereof are accepted if they are employed by the competent authority of a Member State for port State control at the date of adoption of the directive, in other words, on 19 June 1995.
   The Act of Accession does not provide for any transitional measures relating to the application of the directive in respect of Malta. In accordance with article 2 of the Act of Accession the provisions of the directive are binding upon Malta from the date of accession.
   It is the Commission's view that the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations, 2004 (the ‘Regulations’), adopted by Malta to implement the directive, are incompatible with the directive, read in conjunction with the Act of Accession, in so far as they provide that inspectors who do not fulfil the criteria in paragraphs 1-4 of Annex VII of the directive are accepted if they have been employed by the competent authority for port State control between 19 June 1995 and the date of entry into force of the Regulations — in other words, 1 May 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 157, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2005 in Case C-109/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Karl Robert Kranemann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Freedom of movement for workers — Civil servant undergoing preparatory practical training — Practical training completed in another Member State — Reimbursement of travel expenses limited to the domestic stretch of the journey)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 17 March 2005
   in Case C-109/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Karl Robert Kranemann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1)

   (Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) - Freedom of movement for workers - Civil servant undergoing preparatory practical training - Practical training completed in another Member State - Reimbursement of travel expenses limited to the domestic stretch of the journey)
   (2005/C 132/20)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-109/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 17 December 2003, received at the Court on 2 March 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Karl Robert Kranemann and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) precludes a national measure which grants a person who has completed a practical training period under conditions of genuine and effective activity as an employed person in a Member State other than his Member State of origin the right to reimbursement of travel expenses only up to the amount incurred in respect of the domestic stretch of the journey, while providing that, if such an activity were carried out on national territory, all the travel costs would be reimbursed.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case T-36/04: Action brought on 2 February 2004 by Association de la Presse Internationale a.s.b.l. ("API") against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.3.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 71/43
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of articles 43 and             2001 (1). According to the applicant article 4 paragraph 2 of
                              15 of Regulation 40/94 (1).                 Regulation 1049/2001 does not justify a blanket exclusion of
                                                                          the Commission’s pleadings from the principle of open access
                                                                          to Community documents, nor does it give the Commission
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the           the right to refuse access to its pleadings merely because the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                   matter itself or related proceedings are still pending.
                                                                          (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                              of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                                                                              European Parliament, Council and Commission documents,
                                                                              Official Journal L 145, 31/05/2001 P. 43-48.
Action brought on 2 February 2004 by Association de la
Presse Internationale a.s.b.l. (‘API’) against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-89/02 (1)
                         (Case T-36/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/75)
                         (2004/C 71/74)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          By order of 25 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                T-89/02: Check Point Softward Limited v Office for the
European Communities on 2 February 2004 by Association                    Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
de la Presse Internationale a.s.b.l. (‘API’), Brussels, Belguim,          Design) (OHIM).
represented by Mr S. Völcker, Mr F. Louis and Mr J. Heithecker,
lawyers.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul Commission Decision D(2003) 30621 of 20 Nov-
      ember 2003 in its entirety and;
—     Order the Commission to bear the costs.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-307/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/76)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant is a non-profit organisation of foreign journalists
based in Belgium, aiming to assist its members in reporting
back to their home countries about the European Union. It                 By order of 19 November 2003 the President of the Second
applied to the Commission for access to all the submissions               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
made by the Commission in the course of certain proceedings               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
before the European Court of Justice and the European Court               T-307/02: Altana Pharma AG v Office for the Harmonisation
of First Instance. Such access was denied by the contested                of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
decision.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
In support of its application the applicant invokes an infringe-
ment of Articles 2 and 4, paragraph 2, of Regulation 1049/


title: Case T-236/99: Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Direcks Service Station Bocholtz B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.2.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/29
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the               Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Direcks Service
proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the                Station Bocholtz B.V. against the Commission of the
Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1), to the extent to                                  European Communities
which that regulation affects the applicants — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                                        (Case T-236/99)
composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy,
J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
                                                                                (2000/C 47/50)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December
1999, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
1. Dismisses the application;
2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                         European Communities on 14 October 1999 by Direcks
                                                                        Service Station Bocholtz B.V., of Bocholtz (Netherlands),
                                                                        represented by T.J.M. Oostdijk, of the Maastricht Bar.
(1) OJ No C 113 of 11.4.98.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                                                                             Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                             Germany, and order that, as regards the applicant, no
Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Garage Bernsteyn                        demand for repayment should be made, or at any rate
B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                         decide the matter in such way as the Court shall consider
                                ties                                         to be fair and reasonable;
                         (Case T-235/99)                                — make the appropriate order as to costs, in accordance with
                                                                             the law.
                          (2000/C 47/49)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               T-210/99.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 October 1999 by Garage                       (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
Bernsteyn B.V., of Berg en Terblijt (Netherlands), represented
by T.J.M. Oostdijk, of the Maastricht Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                                                                        Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                        Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia —
    Germany, and order that, as regards the applicant, no
                                                                        Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against Commission of the
    demand for repayment should be made, or at any rate
                                                                                European Communities
    decide the matter in such way as the Court shall consider
    to be fair and reasonable;
                                                                                (Case T-269/99)
— make the appropriate order as to costs, in accordance with
    the law.                                                                                (2000/C 47/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
T-210/99.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 3 November
                                                                        1999 by Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoa
                                                                        (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña
                                                                        Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively,
                                                                        Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Av. de Cortenbergh, Brussels.


title: Case C-64/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2016 — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2016 — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas
   (Case C-64/16)
   (2016/C 156/32)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses

      Defendant: Tribunal de Contas

      Question referred

   In view of the mandatory requirements of eliminating the excessive budget deficit and of financial assistance regulated by EU rules, must the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the measures to reduce remuneration that are applied to the judiciary in Portugal, where they are imposed unilaterally and on an ongoing basis by other constitutional authorities and bodies, as is the consequence of Article 2 of Law No 75/2014 of 12 September?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-223/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — European Union water policy — River basin district management plans — Publication and notification to the Commission — None — Information and consultation of the public on the envisaged management plans — None)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-223/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - European Union water policy - River basin district management plans - Publication and notification to the Commission - None - Information and consultation of the public on the envisaged management plans - None)
   2012/C 250/12
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and I. Chatzigiannis, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

      Re:

   Infringement of Articles 13(1), (2) and (6), 14(1) and 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 (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — River basin district management plans — Publication — Information and consultation of the public — Commission not notified of copy management plans

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rules that, the Portuguese Republic, by failing within the prescribed period:

                           —

                           to publish the national and international river basin district management plans;

                           —

                           to publish and to submit to the public, including users, for comment the envisaged river basin district management plans, and

                           —

                           to send the European Commission the copies of those plans,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 13(6) 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, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14(1)(c) and Article 15(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case C-90/04: Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/27

         Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-90/04)
   (2004/C 94/58)
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing hitherto to supply to the Commission the report required by 30 June 2002 under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that Directive.

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/32/EC the Member States are to supply to the Commission by 30 June of each year, on the basis of the results of the sampling and analysis carried out in accordance with Article 6, a short report on the sulphur content of the liquid fuels falling within the scope of the Directive and used within their territory during the preceding calendar year.
   The Republic of Austria was accordingly to have supplied the first report for 2001 by 30 June 2002. The Republic of Austria had not complied with this requirement by the time the present action was brought and so has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/32/EC.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 121, p. 13.


title: Case T-202/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2008 — CLL Centres de Langues v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2008 — CLL Centres de Langues v Commission
   (Case T-202/08) (1)

   (2008/C 285/95)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-145/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

text:
15.6.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/25
importance, there would be no obligation in Italy to apply the        3.    Does the answer to Question 2 turn on whether the
conservation measures laid down in Article 6(2) of the directive            difference in the rules in the Member State of manufacture
to that site during the consultation period and pending a                   and the Member State of importation results from the
Council decision.                                                           fact that different use has been made of the possibility to
                                                                            lay down rules under Article 12(2)(b) of Directive No 70/
                                                                            524/EEC?
(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                      (1) OJ L 270 of 14.12.1970, p. 1.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                      (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
                                                                      court dated 27 March 2002, in the case of Mrs M.K.
                                                                      Alabaster against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                                       for Social Security
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Denkavit
Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter des Bun-                                        (Case C-147/02)
      desinteresses at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
                                                                                (2002/C 144/43)
                        (Case C-145/02)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                        (2002/C 144/42)                               (England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 27 March 2002,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 2002,
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs M.K. Alabaster
                                                                      against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State for Social
                                                                      Security, on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                In a situation where:
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 31 January 2002,              a)    the earnings-related element of a woman’s Statutory
received at the Court Registry on 18 April 2002, for a                      Maternity Pay (‘SMP’) is calculated by reference to her
preliminary ruling in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                  normal weekly earnings for a eight week period ending
against Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter             on 15th week before the expected week of confinement
des Bundesinteresses (Representative of the Federal Interest) at            (‘the relevant period’), and
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht on the following questions:
                                                                      b)    the employer grants a pay rise, which is not back-dated
                                                                            to the relevant period, at any time after the end of
1.   Are national provisions of the law on feedingstuffs, which             the relevant period used for calculating that woman’s
     prohibit imports of a feedingstuff manufactured lawfully               earnings-related element of SMP and before the end of
     in another Member State on the ground that the level of                her maternity leave:
     vitamin D 3 does not comply with the law of the State of
     importation, to be assessed directly in the light of
     Articles 28 and 30 EC?
                                                                      Question 1
2.   Is Article 19 of Directive 70/524/EEC (1) concerning
     additives to be interpreted as permitting the prohibition        Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty and the judgment in Gillespie
     on imports of a supplementary feedingstuff manufactured          [1996] ECR I-475 to be interpreted as meaning that the
     lawfully in another Member State on the ground that it           woman is entitled to have that pay rise taken into consideration
     exceeds the level of vitamin D 3 permitted in the Member         in calculating or re-calculating the earnings-related element of
     State of importation?                                            her SMP?


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/58

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-60/04)
   (2004/C 94/151)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUD for Classes 9 and 14 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘BUD’ – Application No 739102 in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 14

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUD’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2004 in Case T-246/02: Albano Ferrer de Moncada v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff report — Delay in drawing up — Damages)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 September 2004
   in Case T-246/02: Albano Ferrer de Moncada v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Delay in drawing up - Damages)
   (2004/C 300/75)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-246/02: Albano Ferrer de Moncada, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for, first, annulment of the decision whereby the Commission impliedly rejected the applicant's claim of 28 August 2001 for damages owing to the delay in drawing up his staff reports for the reference periods 1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, in so far as necessary, of the decision whereby the Commission impliedly rejected the applicant's complaint of 14 January 2002 and, second, damages in respect of the loss sustained by the applicant owing to the delay in drawing up those staff reports, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, J. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 7 000 in addition to the sum of EUR 1 000 already awarded by the Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case T-282/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Sohawon (fRee YOUR STYLe.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark fRee YOUR STYLe. — Earlier Community and national word marks FREE STYLE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Sohawon (fRee YOUR STYLe.)
   (Case T-282/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark fRee YOUR STYLe. - Earlier Community and national word marks FREE STYLE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 352/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J.L. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nadia Mariam Sohawon (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2012 (Case R 1825/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Ms Nadia Mariam Sohawon.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case T-441/10 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Christian Kurrer against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case F-139/06, Kurrer v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/35

         Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Christian Kurrer against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case F-139/06, Kurrer v Commission
   (Case T-441/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 328/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Christian Kurrer (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Forms of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annulment of the judgment in Case F-139/06 Kurrer v Commission;

               —

               Annulment of the decision of 27 March 2006 in so far as it classifies the applicant as a probationary official in grade A*6, step 2;

               —

               In the alternative, reference of the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for judgment;

               —

               Costs against the Commission, including those of the procedure at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In this appeal, the appellant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 8 July 2010 in Case F-139/06 Kurrer v Commission, dismissing the application in which the appellant, formerly a member of the temporary staff classified in grade A* 8, had sought the annulment of the decision whereby the Commission: (i) appointed the appellant, following an open competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of the European Union, as a probationary official, in so far as that decision classified him in grade A*6, step 2, pursuant to the rules of the new Staff Regulations; and (ii) did not maintain his promotion points.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant argues that, on a proper interpretation of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, all members of the temporary staff having passed an internal or open competition should keep their grade on classification as titular officials, whereas the CST held that that benefit should be reserved for members of the temporary staff moving to a higher category at the time of their establishment.
   The appellant makes four pleas in law, claiming:

               —

               lack of reasoning and error of law, the CST having ruled only very marginally on discrimination between members of the temporary staff recruited by the European Commission and those recruited by the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors of the European Union, the latter having, at the time of their classification, kept their grade and seniority irrespective of the classification laid down in the notice for the competition which they passed;

               —

               infringement of the rules on the interpretation of Community law, in so far as the interpretation followed by the CST was not based either on the wording or the logic of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and an error of law, the interpretation followed by the CST having infringed the principle whereby two situations not being substantially different may not be treated differently, inasmuch as there is no substantial difference between members of the temporary staff established on moving to a different category and those classified as officials following an open competition; moreover, some members of the temporary staff who had become officials following an open competition had kept their promotion points, which was not the case with the appellant;

               —

               infringement of Community law, and in particular of the eligibility for a career and of the eligibility of members of the temporary staff to become officials.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 November 2014 in Case E-6/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/43/EC — Failure to implement)

text:
               13.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/14

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 10 November 2014
   in Case E-6/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/43/EC — Failure to implement)
   (2015/C 158/08)
   In Case E-6/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999 in Case T-28/98: J v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Place of origin - Place of recruitment - Centre of interests)

text:
20.11.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 333/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                     of 28 September 1999                                Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and
in Case T-612/97: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel                      Denis Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the
  GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      Commission’s decision of 6 January 1997 fixing Brussels as
                                                                         the applicant’s place of recruitment — the Court of First
(Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries                   Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President,
— Request for import licences — Case of hardship —                       and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; Y. Mottard, Legal Secretary,
   Transitional measures — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93)                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1999,
                                                                         in which it:
                        (1999/C 333/60)
                                                                         1. Dismisses the action;
                  (Language of the case: German)                         2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-612/97: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
GmbH, established in Ortrau (Germany), represented by Gert
Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
Marie-Adelaïde v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Hubert van Vliet), support-
ed by French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
Christina Vasak) - application for the annulment of Com-
mission Decision K(97) 3274 final of 24 October 1997
rejecting the applicant’s request for the special grant of import            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
licences under the transitional measures provided for in
Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13                                         of 28 September 1999
February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in
bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and                  in Case T-91/98: Jürgen Wettig v Commission of the
R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges, J. Palacio González,                           European Communities (1)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
28 September 1999 in which it:                                           (Officials — Temporary staff — Classification — Article 32
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations)
1. Dismisses the application;
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of                             (1999/C 333/62)
     the Commission;
3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                                        (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                In Case T-91/98: Jürgen Wettig, a member of the temporary
                                                                         staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented for the purposes of the written
                                                                         procedure by Peter Wiesner, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and for
                                                                         the purposes of the oral procedure by Charles Turk, of the
                                                                         Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                         at the latter’s Chambers, 13a Avenue Guillaume, v Commission
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of the European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, Christine
                                                                         Berardis-Kayser and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application for
                     of 28 September 1999                                annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 November 1997
                                                                         definitively classifying the applicant in grade A 5, step 1 — the
in Case T-28/98: J v Commission of the European Com-                     Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D.
                           munities (1)                                  Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
                                                                         Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
(Officials — Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regu-                judgment on 28 September 1999, in which it:
lations — Place of origin — Place of recruitment — Centre
                           of interests)                                 1. Dismisses the application;
                        (1999/C 333/61)                                  2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
In Case T-28/98: J, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by


title: Case C-157/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Neptune Distribution SNC v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Directive 2009/54/EC — Articles 11(1) and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Consumer protection — Nutrition and health claims — Natural mineral waters — Sodium/salt content — Calculation — Sodium chloride (table salt) or total amount of sodium — Freedom of expression and information — Freedom to conduct a business)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Neptune Distribution SNC v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-157/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Directive 2009/54/EC - Articles 11(1) and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Consumer protection - Nutrition and health claims - Natural mineral waters - Sodium/salt content - Calculation - Sodium chloride (table salt) or total amount of sodium - Freedom of expression and information - Freedom to conduct a business))
   (2016/C 068/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Neptune Distribution SNC

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008, read in conjunction with the annex thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the use of the claim ‘very low in sodium/salt’ and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer as regards natural mineral waters and other waters.
               Article 9(2) of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes packaging, labels or advertising for natural mineral waters from displaying claims or indications suggesting to the consumer that the waters concerned are low in sodium or salt or are suitable for a low-sodium diet where the total sodium content, in all the chemical forms present, is equal to or more than 20 mg/l.

               2.

               The examination of the second question has not revealed any information capable of affecting the validity of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/54, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto and with the annex to Regulation No 1924/2006.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case T-327/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, dark grey, light grey and dark red) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in black, dark grey, light grey and dark red — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, dark grey, light grey and dark red)
      (Case T-327/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in black, dark grey, light grey and dark red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/31)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2010 (Case R 189/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in black, dark grey, light grey and dark red as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-117/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG
   (Case C-117/13)
   2013/C 171/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Technische Universität Darmstadt

      Defendant: Eugen Ulmer KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is use subject to purchase or licensing terms within the meaning of Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) where the rightholder offers to conclude with the establishments referred to therein licensing agreements for the use of works on appropriate terms?

               2.

               Does Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC entitle the Member States to confer on the establishments the right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if that is necessary in order to make those works available on terminals?

               3.

               May the rights which the Member States lay down pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so far as to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or store on a USB stick the works made available there?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case F-60/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — CA v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Application instituting proceedings — Formal requirements — Statement of the grounds on which the application is based — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/23

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — CA v Commission
   (Case F-60/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Application instituting proceedings - Formal requirements - Statement of the grounds on which the application is based - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 377/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Guerrieri Ciaceri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser)

      Re:

   The application to annul the defendant’s decision not to award the applicant 6 promotion points in respect of the 2011 promotion year and an application for the award of the points necessary for her promotion to grade AST 2 with retroactive effect.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               CA is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012, p. 34.


title: Case F-68/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 February 2011 — Barbin v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — 2006 promotion exercise — Enforcement of a judgment of the Tribunal — Comparative examination of the merits — Principle of equal treatment — Half-time parental leave)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 February 2011 — Barbin v Parliament
   (Case F-68/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - 2006 promotion exercise - Enforcement of a judgment of the Tribunal - Comparative examination of the merits - Principle of equal treatment - Half-time parental leave)
   2011/C 252/107
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, C. Burgos, J.F. de Wachter, R. Ignătescu and K. Zejdová, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the European Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 for the 2006 promotion exercise

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Barbin to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220 of 12.09.09, p. 43.


title: Case C-79/14: Order of the President of the Court of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v Harald Walter

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/47

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v Harald Walter
   (Case C-79/14) (1)

   2014/C 315/80
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case F-120/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/56

         Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-120/15)
   (2015/C 354/68)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken in execution of a judgment of the General Court, confirming the refusal to grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and offering him a lump sum in an amount which, according to the applicant, is not sufficient to compensate him for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to execute the judgments of the General Court.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs.


title: Case C-221/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Leyla Ecem Demirkan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Additional Protocol — Article 41(1) — ‘Standstill’ clause — Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State — Freedom to provide services — The right of a Turkish national to enter a Member State in order to visit a family member and, potentially, to receive services)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Leyla Ecem Demirkan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-221/11) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Additional Protocol - Article 41(1) - ‘Standstill’ clause - Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State - Freedom to provide services - The right of a Turkish national to enter a Member State in order to visit a family member and, potentially, to receive services)
   2013/C 344/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Leyla Ecem Demirkan

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970, annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to measures to be taken for their implementation (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 3) — Interpretation of the concept of ‘freedom to provide services’ in that provision — Possible inclusion of ‘passive’ freedom to provide services — Right of a Turkish national to travel to another Member State in order to visit a member of his family there and possibly to receive services

      Operative part of the judgment

   The notion of ‘freedom to provide services’ in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 must be interpreted as not encompassing freedom for Turkish nationals who are the recipients of services to visit a Member State in order to obtain services.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-293/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
   (Case C-293/06)
   (2006/C 237/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Shell GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC) for the Federal Republic of Germany, as the State of origin, to treat a currency loss of a German controlling company resulting from the repatriation of so-called start-up capital granted to an Italian establishment as being part of that establishment's profits and to exclude that loss, on the basis of the exemption under Articles 3(1), 3(3) and 11.1(c) of the 1925 Double Taxation Convention between Germany and Italy, from the basis of assessment for German tax, even though the currency loss cannot form part of the establishment's profits to be assessed for purposes of taxation in Italy and thus cannot be taken into account in either the State of origin or in the State in which the establishment is situate?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC) if the currency loss mentioned above is to be included in the basis for assessment of the German tax but may be deducted as operating expenditure only in so far as no tax-free profits are achieved by the Italian establishment?