title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-411/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Metz): GEFCO SA v Receveur principal des douanes (Community Customs Code and implementing Regulation — Outward processing procedure — Exemption from the import duties applied to compensating products — Amount deductible in the event of an incorrect indication of a tariff heading in the temporary export declaration for the goods — Failure having no significant effect on the correct operation of the outward processing procedure)

text:
15.11.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/15
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              profesiones marítimas of 30 December 1999, subject to a
                                                                                condition of reciprocity.
                        of 30 September 2003
                                                                               (1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
in Case C-405/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo): Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina
Mercante Española v Administración del Estado, inter-
   vener: Asociación de Navieros Españoles (ANAVE) (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39(4) EC —
Employment in the public service — Masters and chief mates                                                (First Chamber)
of merchant navy ships — Conferment of powers of public
authority on board — Posts reserved for nationals of the flag
State — Posts open to nationals of other Member States on                                               of 2 October 2003
                       condition of reciprocity)
                                                                               in Case C-411/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Tribunal d’instance de Metz): GEFCO SA v Receveur
                           (2003/C 275/24)                                                           principal des douanes (1)
                                                                               (Community Customs Code and implementing Regulation
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                               — Outward processing procedure — Exemption from the
                                                                               import duties applied to compensating products — Amount
                                                                               deductible in the event of an incorrect indication of a tariff
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         heading in the temporary export declaration for the goods —
                     in the European Court Reports)                            Failure having no significant effect on the correct operation
                                                                                of the outward processing procedure)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/25)
In Case C-405/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) for a preliminary ruling                                         (Language of the case: French)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Colegio
de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española and Administra-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ción del Estado, intervener: Asociación de Navieros Españoles                                      in the European Court Reports)
(ANAVE), on the interpretation of Article 39 EC and Articles 1
and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), the                 In Case C-411/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                        EC by the Tribunal d’instance de Metz (France) for a preliminary
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and                   ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                        GEFCO SA and Receveur principal des douanes, on the
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  interpretation of Articles 145 to 151 of Council Regulation
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,                   (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal               Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                      (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
30 September 2003, in which it has ruled:                                      Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tiz-
                                                                               zano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
                                                                               has given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it has
1.    Article 39(4) EC is to be construed as allowing a Member State           ruled:
      to reserve for its nationals the posts of master and chief mate of
      merchant ships flying its flag only if the rights under powers
      conferred by public law on masters and chief mates of such               1.    Articles 145 to 151 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/
      ships are actually exercised on a regular basis and do not                     92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
      represent a very minor part of their activities.                               Code must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator
                                                                                who has declared goods under an incorrect tariff heading at the
                                                                                time of their temporary exportation from Community territory
2.    Article 39 EC is to be construed as precluding a Member State                  under the outward processing procedure is not prohibited, even
      making access by nationals of the other Member States to the                   in the absence of a formal amendment of the temporary export
      posts of master and chief mate of merchant ships flying its flag,              declaration, from adducing proof that the incorrect declaration
      such as those covered by Article 8(3) of Royal Decree No 2062/                 had no significant effect on the correct operation of the procedure
      1999 por el que se regula el nivel mínimo de formación en                      for the purposes of Article 150(2) of the Customs Code.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/16                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             15.11.2003
2.    Such proof must make it possible to establish, without the             1.    Declares that, by retaining in force a tax on lubricating oils
      slightest ambiguity, that the compensating products have                     under the first paragraph of Article 62 of Legislative Decree
      resulted from processing of the temporary export goods.                      No 504 of 26 October 1995, ‘Testo unico delle disposizioni
                                                                                legislative concernenti le imposte sulla produzione e sui consumi
3.    It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the           e relative sanzioni penali e amministrative’ (Consolidated Text
      circumstances of the main proceedings, whether or not the                    of Legislative Provisions relating to duties on production and
      economic operator has adduced that proof.                                    consumption and related criminal and administrative penalties)
                                                                                beyond the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned
4.    If so, the amount of the import duty which would be applicable               opinion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      to the temporary export goods on the basis of their correct tariff           under Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 Feb-
      heading may be deducted when the compensating products are                   ruary 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject
      released for free circulation.                                               to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring
                                                                                of such products, and Article 8(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/
                                                                                81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.                                                        structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by
                                                                                Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994;
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 25 September 2003
                                                                                of 23 September 2003
in Case C-437/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                            in Case C-452/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Margarethe Ospelt and
                                                                                Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directives 92/12/EEC and 92/81/EEC — Tax on lubricating
                                                                             (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty
                oils — Excise duty on mineral oils)
                                                                             (now Article 56 EC) — Article 40 of and Annex XII to the
                                                                             EEA Agreement — Prior authorisation procedure for the
                            (2003/C 275/26)                                  acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots — Admissi-
                                                                                bility — Conditions)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/27)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           (Language of the case: German)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-437/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and K. Gross) v Italian Republic (Agent:
I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello): Application for a                   In Case C-452/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
declaration that, by retaining in force a tax on lubricating oils,           EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February                   Margarethe Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung,
1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to                     on the interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of                   amendment, Article 12 EC) and Articles 73b to 73d, 73f
such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), and Article 8(1)(a) of                   and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC to 60 EC), the
Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                        Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral                  J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), as amended by Council Directive                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
94/74/EEC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46), the                    D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges;                      Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
judgment on 25 September 2003, in which it:                                  23 September 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-55/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Certified Angus Beef v EUIPO — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF — Earlier well-known figurative and word marks SINCE 1978 CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF BRAND and CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF BRAND — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Certified Angus Beef v EUIPO — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF)
   (Case T-55/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF - Earlier well-known figurative and word marks SINCE 1978 CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF BRAND and CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF BRAND - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Certified Angus Beef LLC (Wooster, Ohio, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Certified Australian Angus Beef Pty Ltd (Surrey Hills, Australia)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2014 (Case R 662/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Certified Angus Beef and Certified Australian Angus Beef.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Certified Angus Beef LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case C-441/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2000/78/EC — Principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation incompatible with the directive — Possibility for a private person to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the State for breach of EU law — Dispute between private persons — Balancing of various rights and principles — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Role of the national court)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/12

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen
      (Case C-441/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation incompatible with the directive - Possibility for a private person to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the State for breach of EU law - Dispute between private persons - Balancing of various rights and principles - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations - Role of the national court))
      (2016/C 211/13)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Højesteret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S

         Defendant: Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, as given concrete expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding, including in disputes between private persons, national legislation, such as that at issue in the proceedings before the referring court, which deprives an employee of entitlement to a severance allowance where the employee is entitled to claim an old-age pension from the employer under a pension scheme which the employee joined before reaching the age of 50, regardless of whether the employee chooses to remain on the employment market or take his retirement.

                  2.

                  EU law is to be interpreted as meaning that a national court adjudicating in a dispute between private persons falling within the scope of Directive 2000/78 is required, when applying provisions of national law, to interpret those provisions in such a way that they may be applied in a manner that is consistent with the directive or, if such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply, where necessary, any provision of national law that is contrary to the general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age. Neither the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations nor the fact that it is possible for the private person who considers that he has been wronged by the application of a provision of national law that is at odds with EU law to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the Member State concerned for breach of EU law can alter that obligation.

         (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case T-435/04: Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Manuel Simões Dos Santos against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/43

         Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Manuel Simões Dos Santos against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-435/04)
   (2005/C 6/84)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 November 2004, by Manuel Simões Dos Santos, residing in Alicante (Spain), represented by A.C. Carreras, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 7 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint and the decisions of 15 December 2003 fixing the cumulative total of merit points awarded to the complainant and the decision of 12 December 2003 confirming that decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case was promoted to Grade A5 in the 2002 promotion procedure. On that occasion, the Appointing Authority notified him of an outstanding balance of 54.19 points. Nevertheless, by letter of 15 December 2003 from the Department of Human Resources, he learnt that his points total at 30 September 2003 was only 1.5 points. It follows from that letter, which constitutes the contested decision, that that reduction in points is not the result of the conversion of the points awarded before the new system established by the Office's decision ADM-03-35, but of a complete cancellation thereof, in consequence of the application of the new rule for starting at zero after promotion, as laid down in that decision.
   In support of his claims, the applicant first of all pleads breach of the principles of legality, legal certainty and non-retroactivity, in so far as there are no exceptional circumstances, in this case, which could justify the withdrawal of the balance of points already awarded to an official and to which he was entitled under the regime in force at the time.
   The applicant also pleads breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of non-discrimination, and of the duty to state reasons.


title: Case T-230/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Peter McBride against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/14                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Edward Kelly against                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                             (Case T-229/03)                                         Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                            (2003/C 239/24)                                          hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                      (Language of the case: English)                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Peadar Elaine II;
                                                                              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ings.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Edward Kelly,
Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission                03 (1).
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application in respect of the MFV Regina Ponti;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.                                                                  Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Hugh McBride against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (Case T-231/03)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (2003/C 239/26)
03 (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Hugh McBride,
                                                                              Downings, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A.
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Peter McBride against                       Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-230/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                            (2003/C 239/25)                                          Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                      (Language of the case: English)                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            capacity application in respect of the MFV Heather Jane
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           II;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Peter McBride,
Downings, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                                                 ings.


title: Case C-288/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014  — Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón SA, Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Article 59 and Annex XIII — Identification of anthracene oil as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure — Equal treatment)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/21

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón SA, Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-288/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Article 59 and Annex XIII - Identification of anthracene oil as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure - Equal treatment))
   2014/C 409/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón SA, Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaten)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón SA and Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case T-356/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/42

         Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)
   (Case T-356/14)
   2014/C 253/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CareAbout GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Luis Florido Rodríquez (Sevilla, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 1569/2013-4 regarding 1., 2. and 4;

               —

               order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Court including the costs of the opposition proceeding

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark Kerashot for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 69  571

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Luis Florido Rodríquez

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘K KERASOL’ for goods in Class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the opposition partially upheld

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-309/02: Action brought on 9 October 2002 by AC.E.GA.S. S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/40              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23.11.2002
Action brought on 9 October 2002 by AC.E.GA.S. S.p.A.                           tax exemptions and loans on preferential terms granted
  against the Commission of the European Communities                            by Italy in favour of public service undertakings the
                                                                                majority of the shares in which are publicly owned
                        (Case T-309/02)                                         (not published in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                                Communities);
                        (2002/C 289/72)
                                                                          —     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the contested decision
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                               in so far as it requires the Italian State to recover the aid
                                                                                in question from the recipients thereof;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 October 2002 by AC.E.GA.S.
S.p.A., represented by Fabrizio Devescovi, Franco Ferletic and            Pleas in law and main arguments
Luigi Daniele, lawyers.
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei
                                                                          Servizi v Commission, Case T-297/02 ACEA S.p.A. v Com-
—    annul in its entirety the Commission’s decision of 5 June            mission, Case T-300/02 AMGA S.p.A. v Commission and Case
     2002 (State Aid No C.27/99, ex NN 69/98), relating to                T-301/02 AEM S.p.A. v Commission.


title: Case C-479/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 28 October 2014  — Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 28 October 2014 — Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld
   (Case C-479/14)
   (2015/C 034/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sabine Hünnebeck

      Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

      Question referred

   Must Article 63(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 65 TFEU, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that, for the calculation of gift tax, the allowance to be set against the taxable value in the case of a gift of real property situated in that Member State is lower in the case where the donor and the recipient had their place of residence in another Member State on the date of execution of the gift than the allowance which would have been applicable if at least one of them had had his or her place of residence in the former Member State on that date, even if other legislation of the Member State provides that, on the application of the recipient of the gift, the higher allowance is to be applied, on condition that account is taken of all assets transferred gratuitously by the donor ten years prior to and within ten years following the date of execution of the gift?


title: Case T-302/02: Action brought on 25 September 2002 by Michael Kenny against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 305/24              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.12.2002
Action brought on 19 September 2002 by Telepharmacy                      Action brought on 25 September 2002 by Michael Kenny
Solutions, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the              against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-302/02)
                        (Case T-289/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/53)
                        (2002/C 305/52)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for the Harmonisation in the                An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) was brought before            Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         of the European Communities on 25 September 2002 by
19 September 2002 by Telepharmacy Solutions, Inc., North                 Michael Kenny, residing at Roodt-sur-Syre, Luxembourg, rep-
Billerica, Massachusetts (United States of America), represented         resented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
by Mary Medyckyj, Solicitor, and Richard Davis, Barrister.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated             —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
      28 June 2002, Case No R 108/2001-4 as regards the                        11 March 2002 rejecting the application by the applicant
      following categories of goods in class 9: ‘a system                      for post No CJ 62/01, concerning the recruitment of an
      for remote control electronic dispensing of packaged                     administrator (career bracket A7-A6) in the Press and
      pharmaceuticals comprising a storage housing from                        Information Division;
      which the packaged pharmaceutical products are stored
      and dispensed, a computer connected to the dispenser,              —     annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of the
      and a communications network connecting the computer                     Complaints Committee of 25 June 2002 rejecting the
      to a remote computer’;                                                   applicant’s complaint;
—     order the Office to bear its own costs and pay those of
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      the Applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Trademark concerned:          Word mark TELEPHARMACY
                              SOLUTIONS — application                    The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, applied for
                              No 001400720.                              the post of administrator in the Press and Information
                                                                         Division. The appointing authority rejected his application and
Goods or services:            System for remote controlled elec-         appointed another candidate to the post in question.
                              tronic dispensing of packaged
                              pharmaceutical products com-
                              prising a storage housing in which         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
                              packaged pharmaceutical prod-
                              ucts are stored and dispensed, a           —     failure to provide a statement of reasons, or
                              computer connected to the dis-
                              penser, and a communications
                              network connecting the computer            —     at least the provision of an inadequate and erroneous
                              to a remote computer (class 9).                  statement of reasons;
Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the             —     non-compliance with the selection procedure;
Board of Appeal:              Examiner.
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations;
Pleas in law:                 Breach of the principle of audi
                              alteram partem and misinterpret-
                              ation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of        —     infringement of fundamental rights and of general prin-
                                                                               ciples of law.
                              the Trade, Mark Regulation.


title: Case C-340/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof, Republic of Austria, by order of that court on 25 June 2001, in the case of Carlito Abler and 21 others, intervener: Sanrest Großküchen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH against Sodexho MM Catering Gesellschaft

text:
24.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 331/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                      (Regional Court) Korneuburg of 4 September 2001, which was
Gerichtshof, Republic of Austria, by order of that court                received at the Court Registry on 11 September 2001, for a
on 25 June 2001, in the case of Carlito Abler and                       preliminary ruling in the case of Pato Plastik Robert Frank
21 others, intervener: Sanrest Großküchen-Betriebsge-                   GmbH v CAROPACK Handelsgesellschaft mbH on the follow-
sellschaft mbH against Sodexho MM Catering Gesellschaft                 ing questions:
                         (Case C-340/01)
                                                                        1.1. Are plastic carrier bags ‘packaging’ within the meaning
                                                                              of European Parliament and the Council Directive
                         (2001/C 331/10)                                      94/62/EC 20 December 1994 (1), particularly Article 3(1)
                                                                              thereof,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        (a)    if a retailer offers them as an article in the cash-
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof,                           desk area and hands them over to customers upon
Republic of Austria (Supreme Court) of 25 June 2001, received                        request against payment so that the purchased
at the Court Registry on 10 September 2001, for a preliminary                        goods can be taken away, or
ruling in the case of Carlito Abler and 21 others, intervener:
Sanrest Großküchen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH against Sodex-
ho MM Catering Gesellschaft, on the following question:
                                                                              (b) if a retailer hands them over to customers for the
                                                                                same purpose after the price has been paid for the
Is there a transfer of part of a business within the meaning of                      purchased goods, regardless whether customers ask
Article 1 of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February                             for them and without obligatory payment of any
1977 (1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member                              extra charge, and they are then filled with the
States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the                      purchased goods?
event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
businesses where a hospital authority, which has previously
employed a catering undertaking to supply meals and bever-
ages to patients and hospital staff at a price based on a day of        1.2.1. First additional question, in the event that one of the
catering per person, and to that end has made available to that                 above questions is answered in the affirmative on the
undertaking water and energy as well as its service premises                    basis of the German version:
(hospital kitchen) together with the necessary equipment,
transfers, after giving notice of termination of that contract,
those operations and the assets previously made available to                    Is the result different if, for the definition of the word
that first catering undertaking to a second catering undertaking                ‘packaging’ in Article 3(1) of the Directive, not the
which does not take over the assets (staff, stock, accounting                   German text, which only has the words ‘von Waren’,
material and menu, diet, recipe or general records) brought in                  but the French or Italian text [Or. 2] is deemed decisive,
by the first catering undertaking itself?                                       which both refer to specific goods (‘marchandises
                                                                                données’ and ‘determinate merci’), and are the plastic
                                                                                carrier bags made by the plaintiff in this case not
(1) OJ 1997 L 61, p. 26.                                                        packaging for the purposes of the Directive because
                                                                                they are filled with any goods at all (rather than with
                                                                                predetermined goods), and in this case which text
                                                                                applies?
                                                                        1.2.2. Second additional question, in the event that one of
                                                                                the above questions is answered in the negative:
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the
Landesgericht Korneuburg of 4 September 2001 in the
case of Pato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v CAROPACK                               May the Austrian legislature or the Commission make
                    Handelsgesellschaft mbH                                     products which are not packaging under the Directive
                                                                                subject to the rules governing packaging laid down in
                         (Case C-341/01)                                        the Directive or to similar rules?
                         (2001/C 331/11)                                2.   Is it in conformity with Community law for the operator
                                                                             of the collection and recovery system set up in Austria to
                                                                             charge a fee (Lizengebühr) even for carrier bags not
                                                                             covered by Directive 94/62/EC solely on the ground that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       the bags bear a mark (‘der Grüne Punkt’) over which the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                           operator disposes?


title: Case C-139/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2002/96/EC and 2003/108/EC — Waste — Electrical and electronic equipment)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-139/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2002/96/EC and 2003/108/EC - Waste - Electrical and electronic equipment)
   (2007/C 95/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to comply with Directives 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (OJ 2003 L 137, p. 24) and 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 106)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with:

                           —

                           Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and

                           —

                           Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96,

                     the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 108 of 6.5.2006.


18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 366/31
— that Article 60 of the Staff Regulations has been                     Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-320/94
     erroneously applied in that the aim of that provision is to                                  and Others (1)
     penalize the production of medical certificates issued
     purely to oblige the patient and not the infringement of a                                 (1999/C 366/67)
     duty of good faith. Since the defendant alleged that the
     applicant had infringed a duty of good faith, it was required
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
     to found its decision solely on Article 86 of the Staff
     Regulations instead of on Article 60.
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
The applicant submits finally that, by failing to comply with           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Staff Regulations and refusing to assist her in proceedings         Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-320/94,
against the medical officer, the defendant has infringed                T-323/94, T-324/94, T-332/94, T-333/94, T-344/94,
Article 24 of those Regulations so as to give rise to liability on      T-345/94 and T-351/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-320/94
its part.                                                               and Others: Klaus Harings and Others v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 351 of 10.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93
                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/65)
                                                                        Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-363/94 and
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    Others (1)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth                                       (1999/C 366/68)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                       (Language of the case: German)
of Cases T-85/93, T-87/93, T-126/93, T-130/93, T-35/94,
T-40/94, T-198/94, T-212/94, T-227/94, T-236/94,                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-237/94, T-238/94, T-278/94, T-279/94, T-281/94,                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
T-283/94, T-284/94, T-349/94, T-350/94, T-357/94 and                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
T-360/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others:              Joined Cases T-363/94 and Others: Benno and Hans Georg
Helmut Bösl and Others v Council of the European Union and              Theunissen and Others v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ Nos C 178 of 18.7.1990, C 34 of 9.2.1991, C 90 of 26.3.1994,     (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, C 400 of 31.12.1994, C 54 of
    C 218 of 6.8.1994, C 304 of 29.10.1994 and C 370 of
                                                                            4.3.1995, C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 119 of 13.5.1995.
    24.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93               Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                          and Others (1)                                                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/66)                                                         (1999/C 366/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the cases: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the              Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-366/94,
names of the applicants Peter Dalhaus, Klaus Buck, Karl-Heinz           T-3/95, T-14/95, T-120/95 and T-124/95 from the list of
Rohler and Ludger Beckhoff from the list of applicants in Case          cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde Diekmeier
T-247/94 - Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others: Helmut Bösl and             and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, No C 54 of 4.3.1995, No C 74 of
(1) OJ No C 233 of 20.8.1994.                                               25.3.1995, No C 174 of 8.7.1995 and No C 208 of 12.8.1995.


13.10.2001            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 289/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-433/99 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria): Margrith
                                                                    Petersilge, née Lackner v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der ge-
                         (2001/C 289/37)                            werblichen Wirtschaft.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-433/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione Tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): Panarotta 2002 Srl v Ufficio delle Imposte
Dirette di Trento.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-4/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/41)
                                                                    By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-434/99 (1)               the register of Case C-4/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v French Republic.
                         (2001/C 289/38)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-434/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): NTB SpA v Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
Trento.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-82/00 (1)
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/42)
                                                                    By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-82/00: Commission of the European
       Removal from the register of Case C-501/99 (1)               Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2001/C 289/39)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
By order of 11 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-501/99: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-130/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/43)
                                                                    By order of 5 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
       Removal from the register of Case   C-511/99 (1)
                                                                    register of Case C-130/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                         (2001/C 289/40)
By order of 25 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-511/99: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case T-423/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (skype) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark skype — Earlier Community word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (skype)
   (Case T-423/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark skype - Earlier Community word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 205/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Skype Ultd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor QC, and subsequently by A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth) (represented by: D. Rose and V. Baxter, Solicitors, and subsequently by D. Rose, R. Guthrie, Solicitors, T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, and J. Curry, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2012 (Case R 1561/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd and, on the other hand, Skype Ultd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Skype Ultd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc and Sky IP International Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Removal from the register of C-86/96

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/11
national deriving taxable income from employment in                         Removal from the register of C-376/95 (1)
Germany without having a permanent residence or usual                                        (98/C 7/28)
abode there and his spouse, who is not permanently
separated from him and likewise has no permanent
residence or usual abode in Germany and earns income               By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
abroad, are not to be treated as persons subject to                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
unlimited taxation for the purposes of applying                    removal from the register of Case C-376/95 (reference for
Paragraph 26.1, sentence 1, EStG (joint assessment) on the         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova):
ground that the combined income of the spouses for the             Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v. Amministrazione delle
calendar year in question does not fall to at least 90 %           Finanze dello Stato.
within the German EStG, or that the income not subject
to the German EStG amounts to more than DM 24 000?                 (1) OJ C 16, 20. 1. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-229/95 (1)                           Removal from the register of C-19/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/29)
                          (98/C 7/25)
                                                                   By order of 20 October 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             removal from the register of Case C-19/96 (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-229/95 (reference for          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Travail (Labour
a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):           Court) Nivelles): Vito Casano v. Institut National
Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena.                                   d'Assurance Maladie InvaliditeÂ, Union Nationale des
                                                                   MutualiteÂs Libres.
(1) OJ C 229, 2. 9. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 77, 16. 3. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-333/95 (1)
                          (98/C 7/26)                                        Removal from the register of C-86/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/30)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-333/95 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): F.lli          removal from the register of Case C-86/96 (reference for a
Carli SpA and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze              preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
delle Stato.                                                       Prima Civile): Palmera SpA v. Amministrazione delle
                                                                   Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-348/95 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-87/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/27)
                                                                                (98/C 7/31)
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-348/95 (reference for          removal from the register of Case C-87/96 (reference for a
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. v.         Prima Civile): Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v.
MinisteÂrio PuÂblico and Fazenda PuÂblica.                         Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.                                        (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.


title: Action brought on 23 May 1998 by Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benítez against European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (Case T-79/98)

text:
C 234/32             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
geographical indication, as a result of a decision which            Executive Director of the EMEA definitively classified the
gives more the impression of a political compromise than            applicant upon recruitment in Grade 7, step 3.
the final legitimate outcome of a procedure for recognition
of a quality product.
                                                                    The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EMEA
                                                                    committed a manifest error of assessment by that
The applicants also argue that on 11 March 1996 the                 classification on the ground that he had not shown to
Director of Directorate-General VI (Agriculture) of the             have twelve years of experience, five of which of practical
Commission advised the Italian State that the proposal put          experience in the field specified in the job description for
forward on 22 January 1994 (that is to say, well beyond             which he had applied. That manifest error of assessment
the deadline set in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC)               prejudices the applicant's career prospect and runs counter
No 2081/92) to break down the designation of Tuscan'               to the principle of legitimate expectations.
origin in terms of sub-areas by way of variants' was not
permissible. On that basis, the applicants are at a loss to
understand how the Commission was able, ultimately, to
grant recognition of the protected geographical indication
Tuscan' and the related rules, which entail precisely those
variants' Ð sub-areas Ð which are clearly not permissible
in that, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)                 Action brought on 25 May 1998 by CIT Belgique SA
No 2081/92, they were proposed out of time.                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-80/98)
                                                                                (98/C 234/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs
Carrasco Benítez against European Agency for the
              Evaluation of Medicinal Products                      An action against the Commission of the European
                       (Case T-79/98)                               Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/62)                               by CIT Belgique SA, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                    of the Trapani Bar, Claudio Tesauro and Francesco
                (Language of the case: French)                      Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er
An action against European Agency for the Evaluation of
Medicinal Products (the EMEA) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on              The applicant claims that the Court should:
23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez,
residing at London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclerq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Ð annul the measure contained in a letter of 23 March
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service            1998 whereby the Commission closed tender
in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson S.aÁ.r.l., 30 Rue de                  procedure 97/33/IX.C.1, and all preceding, subsequent
Cessange.                                                               and/or connected acts and in particular the decision to
                                                                        award the contract for Travel agency services to
                                                                        provide tickets and associated services, especially hotel
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             reservations relating to business trips made by officials
                                                                        and agents on missions' (OJ 1998 p. 83);
Ð annul the EMEA's decision classifying the applicant in
    Grade A 7, step 3;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to make good the harm suffered
                                                                        by CIT as a result of the unlawful award of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 contract to BBL Travel for the provision of travel
                                                                        agency services to officials and other agents on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     mission;
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including the
A 7, passed competition EMEA/A/105. The experience                      costs incurred by the applicant by way of legal fees.
required for classification in Grade A 5 was of 12 years,
at least five years of which were to be of practical
experience.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Although the Director General of the EMEA had indicated             The contested decision constitutes the last stage of a
in a letter to the applicant that he intended to engage him         tender procedure followed by the defendant for the award
as a member of the temporary staff in Grade A 5, the                of the contract for the provision of travel agency services


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 December 1998 in Case C-200/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Ecotrade Srl v. Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) (State aid - Definition - Advantage conferred without any transfer of public funds - Insolvent undertakings - Article 92 of the EC Treaty - Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty)

text:
C 20/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
2. Community law precludes the application of a rule of              Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo,
     national law which limits an employee's entitlement to          Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the            Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 1998 in
     principle of equal pay to a period of two years prior           which it has ruled:
     to the date on which the proceedings were instituted,
     even when another remedy is available, if the latter is
     likely to entail procedural rules or other conditions
     which are less favourable than those applicable to              It is contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty and to
     similar domestic actions. It is for the national court to       Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
     determine whether that is the case.                             1989 on th coordination of laws, regulations and
                                                                     administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
                                                                     pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.                                            Directive 77/780/EEC and Council Directive 92/49/EEC
                                                                     of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
                                                                     and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance
                                                                     other than life assurance and amending Directives
                                                                     73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance
                                                                     Directive) for national rules to require, with a view to
                                                                     implementing Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC
                                                                     of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 package tours, that, where financial security is provided
                                                                     by a credit institution or insurance company situated in
                     of 1 December 1998                              another Member State, the guarantor must conclude an
                                                                     agreement with a credit institution or insurance company
in Case C-410/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            situated in France.
the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Metz): Criminal
             proceedings against AndreÂ Ambry (1)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
(Freedom to provide services Ð Free movement of capital
Ð Provision of financial security Ð Travel agency
arranging the security required to carry on its activities
with a credit institution or insurance company established
                  in another Member State)
                        (1999/C 20/15)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 1 December 1998
                                                                     in Case C-200/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Ecotrade Srl v. Altiforni e
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) (1)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     (State aid Ð Definition Ð Advantage conferred without
                                                                     any transfer of public funds Ð Insolvent undertakings Ð
                                                                     Article 92 of the EC Treaty Ð Article 4(c) of the ECSC
In Case C-410/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                                       Treaty)
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Metz (France) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                                       (1999/C 20/16)
proceedings pending before that court against AndreÂ
Ambry Ð on the interpretation of Articles 59 and 73(b) of
the EC Treaty, of Council Directive 73/183/EEC of 28 June
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1973 on the abolition of restrictions on freedom of
establishment and freedom to provide services in respect
of self-employed activities of banks and other financial
institutions (OJ L 194, 16.7.1973, p. 1) and of Second
Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December 1989 on                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                       published in the European Court Reports)
provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the
business of credit institutions and amending Directive
77/780/EEC (OJ L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G.           In Case C-200/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of               of the EC Treaty by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione
Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.               (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R.                  before that court between Ecotrade Srl and Altiforni e
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 20/11
Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) Ð on the interpretation of            company incorporated under English law, whose
Article 92 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),            registered office is at Oxted (the United Kingdom),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,            represented initially by Kanaar & Co., Solicitors, Ð
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                     Application for the recovery of moneys advanced to the
Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; N.                     defendant by the Commission in the context of a
Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for          demonstration project relating to the conversion of an
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 1998              existing refuse transfer station to electrical power
in which it has ruled:                                              generation from the preparation of raw urban refuse and a
                                                                    counterclaim for payment of the balance of the maximum
                                                                    subsidy contractually provided for and for damages Ð the
                                                                    Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
Application to an undertaking within the meaning of                 (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward
Article 80 of the ECSC Treaty of a system of the kind               and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R.
introduced by Law No 95/79 of 3 April 1979, and                     Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December
derogating from the rules of ordinary law relating to               1998, in which it:
insolvency, is to be regarded as giving rise to the grant of
State aid, which is prohibited by Article 4(c) of the ECSC
Treaty, where it is established that the undertaking
                                                                    1. Orders Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd to
                                                                        reimburse to the Commission the sum of ECU
                                                                        191 438, together with the sum of ECU 50 796 by
Ð has been permitted to continue trading in                             way of interest in respect of the period from 18 August
    circumstances in which it would not have been                       1987 to 23 November 1990, together with interest at
    permitted to do so if the rules of ordinary law relating            the annual rate of 8,15 % from 20 October 1993 on
    to insolvency had been applied, or                                  the sum of ECU 191 438;
Ð has enjoyed one or more advantages, such as a State               2. Dismisses the counterclaim lodged by Industrial
    guarantee, a reduced rate of tax, exemption from the                Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd;
    obligation to pay fines and other pecuniary penalties
    or waiver in practice of public debts wholly or in part,
    which could not have been claimed by another                    3. Orders Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd to pay
    insolvent undertaking in connection with the                        the costs.
    application of the rules of ordinary law relating to
    insolvency.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 December 1998
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                    in Case C-368/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     of 3 December 1998                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's
in Case C-337/96: Commission of the European                        Bench Division): The Queen v. The Licensing Authority
  Communities v. Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd (1)            established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by The
                                                                                Medicines Control Agency) (1)
         (Arbitration clause Ð Breach of contract)
                                                                    (Medicinal products Ð Marketing authorisation Ð
                        (1999/C 20/17)                                  Abridged procedure Ð Essentially similar products)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/18)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-337/96: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Thomas F. Cusack and Fergus                     In Case C-368/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Randolph) v. Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd, a                 of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice (England &


title: Case C-125/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Directive 89/552/EEC — Television broadcasting — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Meaning of decision of direct and individual concern to a natural or legal person)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-125/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a natural or legal person)
   (2008/C 116/06)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks and M. Huttunen, agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG (represented by M. Garcia, Solicitor), French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 December 2005 in Case T-33/01 Infront WM AG v Commission of the European Communities, in which the Court annulled the Commission's decision, adopted under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EC of 3 October 1989, declaring compatible with the common market certain measures taken by the United Kingdom regarding restrictions on the television broadcasting of a series of sports and other events of national interest — Concept of being directly and individually concerned for the purposes of Article 230 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 94/17
      Removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-267/96 (1)
                         (98/C 94/41)                                                       (98/C 94/44)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (Reference for          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):             removal from the register of Case C-267/96: Republic of
Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-             France, supported by the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v.
wesen v. Bauer Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG.                     European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-146/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-58/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/42)
                                                                                (98/C 94/45)
By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-146/97: Commission             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                  removal from the register of Case C-58/97: Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-100/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/43)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-68/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/46)
By order of 11 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-100/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of                      By order of 20 January 1998, the President of the Court
Luxembourg.                                                        of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-68/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.


title: Case C-153/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe) BV (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Articles 12(2) and (5), 217(1) and 243 — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Implementing provisions of Regulation No 2913/92 — Articles 10 and 11 — Classification of goods — Binding tariff information — Invocation by a trader other than the holder with respect to the same goods — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe) BV
   (Case C-153/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Articles 12(2) and (5), 217(1) and 243 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Implementing provisions of Regulation No 2913/92 - Articles 10 and 11 - Classification of goods - Binding tariff information - Invocation by a trader other than the holder with respect to the same goods - Legitimate expectations)
   2011/C 160/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe) BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 12(2) and (5), 217(1), and 243 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Classification of goods — Challenge to a decision of the customs authorities on the classification of a product — Reliance by the complainant on binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of another Member State concerning a similar product

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Articles 10 and 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 12/97 of 18 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who makes customs declarations in his own name and on his own behalf cannot rely on a binding tariff information of which he is not the holder, but which is held by an associated company on whose instructions he made those declarations.

               2.

               Articles 12(2) and (5) and 217(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, and Article 11 of Regulation No 2454/93, read in conjunction with Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 12/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings relating to the imposition of customs duties, an interested party may challenge that imposition by submitting as evidence a binding tariff information issued in respect of the same goods in another Member State although the binding tariff information cannot produce the legal effects attaching to it. It is, however, for the national court to determine whether the relevant procedural rules of the Member State concerned provide for the possibility of producing such types of evidence.

               3.

               Article 12 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 12/97, must be interpreted as meaning that a national policy which allows national authorities to refer, for the purpose of the tariff classification of declared goods, to a binding tariff information issued to a third party for the same goods, could not give rise, on the part of traders, to a legitimate expectation that they could rely on that policy.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-380/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 8 August 2012 — X BV, other party: Minister van Financiën

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 8 August 2012 — X BV, other party: Minister van Financiën
   (Case C-380/12)
   2012/C 303/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X BV

      Other party: Minister van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the expression ‘eliminating the impurities’ in HS Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Harmonised System also cover the stripping of a chemical product in a crude state of certain chemical particles included therein through natural circumstances, and where the elimination thereof occurs with a view to the strengthening of (specific) natural properties of the mineral product which had previously decreased in strength due to those natural circumstances?

               2.

               If, on the basis of the answer to the question raised in 1 above, it can be established that the elimination of impurities within the meaning of HS Note 1 to Chapter 25 has occurred, on the basis of what criteria should an assessment then be made as to whether an extracted mineral product such as decolorising earth, after being washed successively with sulphuric acid and water, can remain classified under heading 2508 40 00 of the CN on the basis of the aforementioned Note, and should not rather be regarded as a chemical product as referred to in Chapter 38 of the HS?