title: Appeal brought on 19 July 1997 by the cooperative society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA) BA against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 between, on the one hand, Florimex BV and Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten and, on the other hand, the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the cooperative society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA) BA (Case C-265/97 P)

text:
27 . 9 . 97                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 295/ 15
        entitled to retain export refunds, applicable to the                    produkten against the decision of 2 July 1992 ( SG(92 )
        exports in question or any portion thereof?                             D/8782 ) inadmissibile and in any event dismiss them,
                                                                                and
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 of 27 November
       1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application
      of the system of export refunds on agricultural products ( OJ         — order Florimex BV and Vereniging van Grooth
      L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 ).                                           andelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten jointly and
( 2 ) Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on                         severally to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings
      emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform                   in accordance with Article 69 ( 2 ) of the Rules of
      encephalopathy ( OJ L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996, p. 17).                         Procedure .
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the
      advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural
      products ( OJ L 62 , 7. 3 . 1980, p. 5 ).                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
C ) Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 773 /96 of 26 April 1996
      laying down special measures derogating from Regulations
      ( EEC ) No 3665/87, ( EEC ) No 3719/88 and ( EEC ) No 1964/
                                                                            — The Court of First Instance wrongly applied very
      82 in the beef and veal sector ( OJ L 104 , 27 . 4 . 1996 , p. 19 ).
                                                                                stringent requirements as to the statement of the
                                                                                reasons on which the decision of 2 July 1992, in
                                                                                which the Commission rejected the complaints of
                                                                                Florimex and Others, was based and, when assessing
                                                                                whether those requirements were satisfied, undertook
                                                                                a detailed examination of the complainants'
Appeal brought on 19 July 1997 by the cooperative                               arguments . The Court thereby demonstrated an
society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA) BA                          incorrect legal view of Article 190 of the EC Treaty,
against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1997 by the                            applied an incorrect standard of assessment and
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                          wrongly acted in the Commission 's stead .
Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 between, on the one
hand, Florimex BV and Vereniging van Groothandelaren                        — In paragraphs 137 and 138 the Court of First Instance
in Bloemkwekerijprodukten and, on the other hand, the
                                                                                erred in law by holding that it was not called upon to
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                                adjudicate on the arguments put forward by the VBA
the cooperative society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen                             concerning the non-application of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
                          Aalsmeer' (VBA ) BA
                                                                                Treaty or the possible application of the second
                           ( Case C-265 /97 P )                                 sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 , but
                               ( 97/C 295/23
                                                                                only on the legality of the conclusion reached by the
                                                                                Commission in the contested decision of 2 July 1992
                                                                                that the user fee falls within the first sentence of
                                                                                Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 : the Commission,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May                              and the Court of Justice in its case-law, at that time
 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European                            still considered the second sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of
 Communities in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92
                                                                                Regulation No 26 as an application ( particularization )
 between, on the one hand, Florimex BV and Vereniging                           of the first sentence and specifically of the second
 van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten and, on
                                                                                exception therein ( justification on the basis of a
 the other hand, the Commission of the European                                 national market organization was irrelevant ). It is thus
 Communities, supported by the cooperative society
                                                                                self-evident that the assessment framework taken by
 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA ) BA, was                           the Commission is the first sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            Regulation No 26 . That does not imply that the
 Communities on 19 July 1997 by the cooperative society                         Commission did not also take into consideration the
 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' ( VBA ) BA,
                                                                                conditions for — as later happened — the third
 represented by G. van der Wal , with an address for service                    exception , or that the second sentence of Article 2 ( 1 )
 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                                of Regulation No 26 can be disregarded .
 Grand-Rue .
 The appellant claims that the Court should :                                   It cannot be the case that an agricultural cooperative
                                                                                such as the VBA, which accepts members in ( the
                                                                                border areas of) other Member States, cannot rely on
 — declare the VBA's appeal against the judgment of the                          the second sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation
        Court of First Instance of the European Communities                      No 26 .
        of 14 May 1997 in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92
        admissible,
                                                                            — The Court of First Instance wrongly refused or in any
                                                                                event,   without   stating its reasons,   neglected to
 — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance                         consider to what extent the action should be dismissed
         of the European Communities of 14 May 1997 in                           on the basis of — in short — the ' rule of reason '. The
        Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92 and, ruling afresh,                    Court should have examined whether the judgment in
         declare the actions brought by Florimex BV and                          Case C-250/90 (') is relevant in this case and leads to
         Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerij                        a different decision .
 ---pagebreak--- C 295/ 16                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27 . 9 . 97
— The Court of First Instance errs in law, and in any                   Action brought on 22 July 1997 by the Commission of the
       event fails to give sufficient reasons, in its finding in         European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
       paragraphs 146 to 153 that the decision of 2 July
                                                                                ( Case C-268/97 )
       1992, containing the Commission's rejection of the
       complaints of Florimex and Others, is based on an                                           ( 97/C 295/24 )
       interpretation and application of the first sentence of
       Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 having a wider
       scope than was the case with earlier decisions .
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice on 22 July 1997 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented
— In paragraphs 155 to 169, the Court of First Instance                 by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and Lena Strom, a
       comes wrongly and, moreover, incomprehensibly to                 member of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
       the conclusion that the contested decision, as clarified         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
       in the course of the proceedings, with regard to the             Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
       VBA's survival is not sufficient to demonstrate that the
       user fee is necessary for attainment of the objectives
       set out in Article 39 of the Treaty within the meaning
       of the first sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation           The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                        that the Court should :
       No 26 , and used the wrong legal standard for the
       application of that provision or at least erred in law in
       its application of the first sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of
       Regulation No 26 . The Court exceeded its powers by              — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
       supplementing the facts with suppositions which were,                period all the measures necessary to comply with
       moreover, incorrect .                                                Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC
                                                                            on the approximation of laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions of the Member States
                                                                            relating to the protection of animals used for
— In paragraphs 170 to 183 , the Court of First Instance                    experimental and other scientific purposes ('), the
       introduces and applies the wrong legal standard, or at               Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
       least formulates a standard for which no legal support               under that directive and the Treaty,
       can be found, by posing the condition that a fee
       charged in the interest of the VBA's survival cannot be
       accepted unless it is levied on a proportionate basis, as
       consideration for a service or other advantage whose             — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
       value is such as to justify the amount charged, or at
        least the Court's considerations in that regard are
        incomprehensible .                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— In paragraphs 184 to 186 , the Court of First Instance                — In respect of Article 14 of the Directive, the
        wrongly and, moreover, incomprehensibly, considers                  requirement regarding appropriate training is only
        that the Commission based its rejection of Florimex 's              satisfied, under Belgian law, as regards a ' maitre
        complaints ( also ) on the consideration that the user fee          d'experience' ( master of experiments ), whereas the
        has an effect analogous to that of a minimum auction                said article refers to all 'persons who carry out
        price , and consequently finds, on the basis of those               experiments or take part in them'.
        considerations, that the Commission's statement of
        reasons was insufficient .
                                                                        — In respect of Article 22 of the Directive, it is not
                                                                             sufficient to refer, as Belgium has done , to the rules
                                                                            transposing the directives for the harmonization of
— In paragraphs 191 to 195 , the Court of First Instance                     standards and protocols in respect of the testing of
        wrongly, or at least incomprehensibly and without                    proprietary medicinal products and medicaments . The
        stating sufficient reasons, proceeds on the basis that a             aim of Directive 86/609/EEC is the protection of
        charge levied by the VBA on holders of trade                         animals and the avoidance of duplicate testing:
        agreements and a charge levied on direct supplies must               Article 22 refers in general to all experiments 'for the
        be equal unless there is a difference between the two                purpose of satisfying national or Community health
        types of supply.                                                     and safety legislation ' and therefore not solely to the
                                                                             testing of medicaments for human and veterinary use .
 f 1 ) Gottrup-Klim v. Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab [ 1994 ]
       ECR 1-5641 , paragraphs 34 and 35 .                               O OJ L 358 , 18 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .


title: Case T-825/16: Action brought on 24 November 2016 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — POCF (Pallas Halloumi)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/52

         Action brought on 24 November 2016 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — POCF (Pallas Halloumi)
   (Case T-825/16)
   (2017/C 022/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pancyprian Organisation of Cattle Farmers (POCF) (Latsia, Cyprus)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Pallas Halloumi’ — Application for registration No 11 180 536

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 2065/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-424/10: Action brought on 18 September 2010 — Dosenbach-Ochsner v OHIM — Sisma (Representation of a rectangle with elephants)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/36

         Action brought on 18 September 2010 — Dosenbach-Ochsner v OHIM — Sisma (Representation of a rectangle with elephants)
   (Case T-424/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dosenbach-Ochsner AG Schuhe und Sport (Dietikon, Switzerland) (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sisma SpA (Mantova, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 July 2010 in Case R 1638/2008-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark representing a rectangle with elephants for goods in Classes 10, 16, 21, 24 and 25

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: SISMA S.p.A.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the applicant

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: international and national figurative marks representing an elephant and the national word mark ‘elefanten’ for goods in Classes 24 and 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the marks at issue are conceptually, visually and aurally similar and the applicant has expressly submitted that its trade marks have acquired a highly distinctive character as a result of intensive use or their reputation.

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


title: Case C-458/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/29

         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-458/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to transpose fully and correctly Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission bases its action on two grounds of complaint.
   By its first ground of complaint, the Commission maintains that the transposition of points (b) and (c) of Article 9(3) of Directive 98/83 (1) is incomplete. The national legislation does not provide that the derogation must contain ‘previous relevant monitoring results’ and does not refer to ‘the quantity of water supplied each day’, ‘the population concerned’ and ‘whether or not any relevant food-production undertaking would be affected’.
   By its second ground of complaint, the Commission claims that the transposition of point (e) of Article 9(3) of Directive 98/83 is incomplete and incorrect, since the Luxembourg authorities claim, inter alia, that, given that it is the party requesting a derogation who is responsible for defining and implementing remedial measures, it is that party who should provide a ‘summary of the plan’, a ‘timetable for the work’ and an ‘estimate of the cost’ of the measures, and not the party making the decision to grant the derogation, as required by the directive.

      (1)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32)


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 16 October 1997 in Case C-140/96 P: Konstantinos Dimitriadis v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

text:
C 26/2                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.1.98
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                      (Second Chamber)
                                                                     Ð declare that, by not establishing programmes, which
                     of 16 October 1997
                                                                         incorporate quality objectives and set deadlines for
in Case C-140/96 P: Konstantinos Dimitriadis v. Court of                 their implementation, in order to reduce water
         Auditors of the European Communities (1)                        pollution caused by the 99 dangerous substances in the
                                                                         first indent of List II in the Annex to Council Directive
    (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)                  76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous
                         (98/C 26/02)                                    substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
                                                                         the Community (1) and, consequently, by not making
                                                                         the discharges which are made into its waters and are
                (Language of the case: Greek)                            liable to contain those substances subject to prior
                                                                         authorization from the authority which is to lay down
                                                                         the emission standards on the basis of quality
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           objectives set in the programmes, the Hellenic
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                         Treaty and Article 7 of the Directive,
In Case C-140/96 P: Konstantinos Dimitriadis, former
official of the Court of Auditors of the European                    Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Markos Papazissis, of the Thessalonica Bar, with an                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
address for service in Luxembourg at the applicant's
home, 4A, Boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte Ð
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance           In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 189 of
of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of                       the EC Treaty, directives are binding, as to the result to be
28 February 1996 in Case T-294/94 Dimitriadis v. Court               achieved, upon each Member State to which they are
of Auditors [1996] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-151) seeking to              addressed. In accordance with the first paragraph of
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                 Article 5 of the Treaty, Member States are to take all
proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the European                 appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to
Communities (Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Christos                    ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the
Komninos and Paolo Giusta) Ð the Court (Second                       Treaty or resulting from actions taken by the institutions
Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President of the                 of the Community.
Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                      Under Article 7 of the Directive the Greek Republic had
Registrar, made an order on 16 October 1997, the                     to establish programmes in order to reduce pollution of its
operative part of which is as follows:                               waters by the substances laid down by the Directive;
                                                                     however, it had failed to give notice of such programmes
                                                                     up until the time when the Commission lodged this
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                     application.
2. The appellant is odered to pay the costs.                         (1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                     Gerichtshof by order of that court of 4 November 1997 in
                                                                     the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler
Action brought on 10 November 1997 by the Commission                 Landesregierung v. (1) Herbert Kappes and (2) Edwin
of the European Communities against the Hellenic                                                  Neuner
                           Republic
                                                                                (Case C-395/97)
                       (Case C-384/97)
                                                                                (98/C 26/04)
                         (98/C 26/03)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by an order of the Oberster
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 4 November
on 10 November 1997 by the Commission of the                         1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-                   25 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service           Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,              v. (1) Herbert Kappes and (2) Edwin Neuner on the
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                      following question:


               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/21

         Removal from the register of Case C-83/04 (1)

   (2005/C 106/44)

      (Language of the case: Portuguese)

   By order of 4 February 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-83/04: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-170/98)

text:
C 378/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
limiting the effects of the liberalisation of special regular           promote unfair competition with regard to existing
services which was introduced by that regulation.                       regular services, and, in particular, to the disadvantage
Consequently, according to the Commission, the French                   of those provided by Schiocchet SARL;
State has not breached Community law.
                                                                    Ð annul classification Decision D(98)ab/g/plainte/
The applicant maintains that the exemption provision laid
                                                                        Schiocchet/class-2 90176 of the Commission of
down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is
                                                                        19 August 1998.
unlawful, inasmuch as that provision is itself incompatible
with the Treaty and, in particular, with Article 75(1)(a) of
the Treaty of Rome. In the present case, the exemption              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
provision at issue has enabled SocieÂteÂ Mousset, since the
entry into force of Article 4(2) of the regulation in               The present case concerns allegedly unlawful conduct on
question, to continue to compete with the existing regular          the part of the company known as Taxi Gaby Colarelli, a
service provided by the applicant, which was established            competitor of the applicant.
prior to that regulation, and has the effect of distorting
competition in the common market.                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
                                                                    those relied on by the applicant in Case T-169/98
According to the applicant, the Commission wrongly                  Schiocchet v. Commission.
considered SocieÂteÂ Mousset to have been exempt from the
authorisation requirement since the entry into force of
Regulation (EEC) No 684/92. In addition, the
Commission erred in law in considering that paragraph
1.3 of Article 2 of that regulation was not intended to
restrict the scope of Article 4(2) thereof.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-159/97 (1)
The Commission has also engaged in unlawful                                                  (98/C 378/47)
discrimination, inasmuch as it applied different treatment
to comparable situations, thereby placing the applicant at                         (Language of the case: French)
a disadvantage by comparison with other providers of
regular services. That difference in treatment was not              By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
justified by the existence of any other objectives to which         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
any weight attaches.                                                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    Case T-159/97: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca FerraÄo v.
                                                                    Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market
                                                                    (trade marks and designs).
Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL                (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-170/98)
                        (98/C 378/46)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-297/97 (1)
An action against the Commission of the European                                             (98/C 378/48)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                                 (Language of the case: English)
1998 by Schiocchet SARL, the registered office of which is
at Beuvillers (France), represented by Pascal Barbier, of the       By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
at the Chambers of Faltz and AssocieÂs, 6 Rue Heinrich              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Heine.                                                              Case T-297/97: David T. Keeling v. Office for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Harmonisation of the Internal Market (trade marks and
                                                                    designs).
Ð annul the provisions of Article 4(2) of Council
    Regulation No 684/92, inasmuch as its effect is to              (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: Case T-418/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — OSA v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/41

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — OSA v Commission
   (Case T-418/08)
   (2008/C 313/75)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním (OSA) (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted by one authors' society to another constitute a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.
   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised by the applicant in Case T-415/08 IMRO v Commission.


title: Case F-52/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Da Silva Pinto Branco v Court of Justice (Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Probationary official — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Rights of the defence — Evaluation of abilities — Judicial review)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Da Silva Pinto Branco v Court of Justice
   (Case F-52/09) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Probationary official - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Rights of the defence - Evaluation of abilities - Judicial review)
   2010/C 317/83
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Delfina Da Silva Pinto Branco (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Erniquin and C. Defago, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: A.V. Placco, Agent)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant. Next, application for the applicant to be established as an official or to be reinstated in her post as a probationary official. Lastly, application for damages for non-pecuniary losses suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mrs Da Silva Pinto Branco to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10/10/2009, p. 16.


title: Case F-100/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — AM v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Insurance against accidents and occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the accidental cause of a stroke — Medical committee — Principle of collegiality)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — AM v Parliament
   (Case F-100/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Social security - Insurance against accidents and occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the accidental cause of a stroke - Medical committee - Principle of collegiality)
   2012/C 138/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AM (Málaga, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision refusing to regard the stroke suffered by the applicant on 5 March 2006 as an accident within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Art. 2 of the JSIS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AM to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p.37.


title: Judgment of the Court of 25 March 2013 in Case E-10/12 — Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf. (Directive 91/533/EEC — Obligation to inform employees — Amendments to a written contract of employment — Effect of non-notification of amendments)

text:
               19.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/7

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 25 March 2013
   in Case E-10/12
   Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf.
   (Directive 91/533/EEC — Obligation to inform employees — Amendments to a written contract of employment — Effect of non-notification of amendments)
   2013/C 270/05
   In Case E-10/12 Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf. — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), on the interpretation of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 25 March 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship must be interpreted as not requiring that compensation to an employee is to be assessed on the basis of a written contract of employment if no written document has been handed over to the employee concerning amendments, temporary or permanent, that may have been made to the essential aspects of the contract of employment or employment relationship between the parties within the time limits laid down in Article 5 of the Directive. This applies also in the context of bankruptcy proceedings or a comparable division of a limited liability company.


title: Case C-147/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(1)(b) — Effects — Rights conferred by a Community trade mark — Identical or similar signs — Prohibition of use — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment — Taking into consideration the use of a language other than an official language of the European Union)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/13

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV
   (Case C-147/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1)(b) - Effects - Rights conferred by a Community trade mark - Identical or similar signs - Prohibition of use - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment - Taking into consideration the use of a language other than an official language of the European Union))
   (2015/C 279/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL

      Defendants: AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess the likelihood of confusion that may exist between a Community trade mark and a sign which cover identical or similar goods and which both contain a dominant Arabic word in Latin and Arabic script, those words being visually similar, in circumstances where the relevant public for the Community trade mark and for the sign at issue has a basic knowledge of written Arabic, the meaning and pronunciation of those words must be taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-447/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 5 October 2012 — H.J. Kooistra; other party: Burgemeester van Skarsterlân

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 5 October 2012 — H.J. Kooistra; other party: Burgemeester van Skarsterlân
   (Case C-447/12)
   2013/C 26/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: H.J. Kooistra

      Other party: Burgemeester van Skarsterlân

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009, be understood to mean that the Regulation does not apply to identity cards, such as the Netherlands NIK [Nederlandse identiteitskaart], issued by Member States to their nationals, regardless of their period of validity and regardless of the possibilities of using them as travel documents?

               2.

               If it follows from the answer to Question 1 that Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), does indeed apply to identity cards such as the Netherlands identity card, having regard to the possibilities of using such cards as travel documents, is Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2252/2004 valid in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is to the effect that Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), is valid, must Article 4(3) of the Regulation, in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 7(f) of the Privacy Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of the Privacy Directive, be interpreted to mean that, when the Member States give effect to Regulation No 2252/2004, there should be a statutory guarantee that the biometric data collected and stored pursuant to that Regulation may not be collected, processed and used for any purposes other than the issuing of the document?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case C-442/03 P: Appeal brought on 20 October 2003 by P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA against the judgment delivered on 5 August 2003 by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-116/01 between P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, supported by Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, and the Commission of the European Communities and T-118/01 between Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, supported by P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/18                    EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.1.2004
Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the                     The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no
coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-             jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Commission de
trative action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners, as         conciliation et d’expertise douanière in its decision of 18 March
amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the                2003.
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Union is founded, properly construed, precludes a national rule                 (1) OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.
containing a general authorisation for doctors who have not completed
the training required by Article 1 of that directive to carry out the
activities of a dental practitioner, irrespective of the title under which
those activities are carried out.
(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                                Appeal brought on 20 October 2003 by P&O European
                                                                                Ferries (Vizcaya) SA against the judgment delivered
                                                                                on 5 August 2003 by the First Chamber (Extended
                                                                                Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                European Communities in joined cases T-116/01 between
                                                                                P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, supported by Dipu-
          ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE JUSTICE                                     tación Foral de Vizcaya, and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities and T-118/01 between Diputa-
                            of 11 July 2003                                     ción Foral de Vizcaya, supported by P&O European
                                                                                Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
in Case C-161/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Commission de conciliation et d’expertise douanière):
Administration des douanes v Centrale d’achat française                                                  (Case C-442/03 P)
pour l’outre-mer SA (CAFOM), Samsung Electronics
                                France (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/31)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court’s lack of
                              jurisdiction)
                                                                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 August 2003
                             (2004/C 7/30)                                      by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
                                                                                First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
                      (Language of the case: French)                            T-116/01 (1) between P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA,
                                                                                supported by Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, and the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities and T-118/01 (2)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          between Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, supported by P&O
                     in the European Court Reports)                             European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities, was brought before the Court of
                                                                                Justice of the European Communities on 20 October 2003 by
                                                                                P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, established in Bilbao
In Case C-161/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                   (Spain), represented by Sir Jeremy Lever QC and M. Pickford,
by the Commission de conciliation et d’expertise douanière                      Barristers, and J. Ellison, Solicitor.
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Administration des douanes and Centrale d’achat française
pour l’outre-mer SA (CAFOM), Samsung Electronics France —                       The Appellant claims that the Court should:
on the interpretation of Article 27 of Protocol No 4 annexed
to the Europe Agreement between the European Communities
and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of                   1.    make an order setting aside the Court of First Instance’s
Hungary, of the other part, concluded and approved in the                             judgment of 5 August 2003 and remitting the questions
name of the European Communities by Decision 93/743/                                  set out at paragraph 13 of the appeal for determination
Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and the Commission of                                by the Court of First Instance;
13 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 348, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-                  2.    make an order that the Commission pay the Appellant’s
chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans,                                costs of this appeal; and
Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                   3.    make an order setting aside the order of the Court of First
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,                          Instance of 5 August 2003 that the Appellant pay the
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,                         Commission’s costs, and reserving reconsideration of
made an order on 11 July 2003 of which the operative part is                          those costs for the Court of First Instance when the case
as follows:                                                                           is remitted to it.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 7/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         event, (c) in the circumstances, the Commission was stopped
                                                                        from denying that the notification was lawful by reason of
                                                                        some formal defect and the Court of First Instance erred in law
                                                                        in failing to hold that that was so.
The Appellant’s application to the Court of First Instance was
dismissed on the basis that aid granted to the Appellant in
1995 was a continuation of aid which had previously been                The Court of First Instance erroneously relied on (a) the
granted to the Appellant in 1992 unlawfully (without prior              reference (‘NN’) used by the Commission in relation to the
notification to the Commission); that the 1995 aid was                  1995 aid and (b) the fact that the Commission did not reject
effectively tainted by the unlawfulness of the earlier aid; and         the letter of 27 March 1995 (which, by circular reasoning, the
that the unlawfulness was not cured by the provision in 1995            Court of First Instance said that it would have done, if it had
of the information about the 1995 agreement The Appellant               understood the letter to be a notification) as showing that the
submits that the Court of First Instance was wrong in law to            1995 aid had not been duly notified to the Commission.
dismiss its application for the following reasons:                      Neither of those facts was capable in law of depriving the letter
                                                                        of 27 March 1995 of its character as a notification of the plan
                                                                        to grant the 1995 aid.
The Court of First Instance misconstrued Article 88(3) EC,
failing to give effect to the principle that the obligation to          (1) OJ C 212, 28.07.2001, p. 26.
inform the Commission of plans to alter aid is a discrete               (2) OJ C 227, 11.08.2001, p. 29.
obligation no less than is the obligation to inform the
Commission of plans to grant (new) aid. Even where aid was
originally granted unlawfully, altered aid granted under an
agreement that replaces the original agreement will be granted
lawfully if the Commission is informed of the plans to grant
the altered aid and takes a favourable decision with regard to
it before the altered aid is granted.
                                                                        Action brought on 22 October 2003 by the Commission
The Court of First Instance erroneously supported its con-              of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
clusion summarised at paragraph 1 above by finding that the
substance of the aid did not differ between the 1992 and 1995
agreements, and that the 1995 aid was therefore tainted by the                                    (Case C-447/03)
unlawfulness of the 1992 aid.
                                                                                (2004/C 7/32)
The Court of First Instance failed to recognise that the letter of
27 March 1995 providing information to the Commission
about the 1995 agreement was capable in law of having, and
did have, a two-fold character: it disposed of the 1992                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
agreement as having been replaced and it informed the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 October
Commission of the finalised plan to grant new aid by way of             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
replacement of the 1992 aid; the Court of First Instance erred          represented by Minas Kostantinidis and Roberto Amorosi,
in law in supposing that the first aspect of the letter excluded        acting as Agents.
the second.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Court of First Instance relied on alleged procedural failings
in the provision of information by way of the letter of                 —     declare that, by failing to bring into force the necessary
27 March 1995. The Court of First Instance erred in so doing                  measures to ensure that waste, stored and deposited in
since: (a) contrary to the Court of First Instance’s judgment,                dumps on Enichem’s former Manfredonia site (province
there is no requirement laid down by Article 88(3), and there                 of Foggia) and in the Pariti I dump (province of Manfre-
was none in law at the time of the notification, that the                     donia) is recovered or disposed of without endangering
relevant information must be supplied by the Member State in                  human health and without using processes or methods
question; (b) the Court of First Instance relied on the fact that             which could harm the environment, and by failing to
the form and content of the notification did not satisfy the                  bring into force the necessary measures to ensure that the
formal criteria laid down by the Commission in communi-                       holder of the waste stored and deposited in dumps on
cations to Member States, overlooking the fact that communi-                  Enichem’s Manfredonia site and the holder of urban waste
cations from the Commission to Member States cannot create                    in the Pariti I and Conte di Troia dumps has it handled by
legal requirements that are binding on individuals; and, in any               a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking


title: Case T-5/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ocean beach club ibiza — Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)
   (Case T-5/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ocean beach club ibiza - Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 243/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, F. Miazzetto and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2014 (Case R 2292/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club and Ice Mountain Ibiza

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case T-608/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)
   (Case T-608/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 121/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/2

         Conduct of the activities of the General Court between 1 and 13 September 2010
   2010/C 209/02
   At its Plenary Meeting on 8 June 2010, the General Court took note of the fact that, by reason of the Court vacation, the taking of the oath before the Court of Justice by the new Members of the General Court will take place only after the end of that vacation. Consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, until the new Members of the General Court take up their duties:

               —

               the President of the General Court will be Mr Jaeger;

               —

               the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges will be Mr Azizi, Mr Meij, Mr Vilaras, Mr Forwood, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Czúcz, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Ms Pelikánová, Presidents of Chambers;

               —

               the decision of 19 September 2007 on the organisation of the General Court and the composition of the Grand Chamber (OJ 2007 C 269, p. 40), the decision of 16 June 2009 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers and on the composition of the Appeal Chamber (OJ 2009 C 153, p. 2), the decision of 7 October 2009 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers (OJ 2009 C 267, p. 6) and the decision of 12 May 2010 on the designation of the Judge replacing the President of the General Court as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures (OJ 2010 C 148, p. 1) will continue to apply.


title: Case C-180/05: Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/6

         Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-180/05)
   (2005/C 171/12)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to apply the provisions on public lending right provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of the directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   As long as the Grand Ducal regulation implementing Article 65 of the Law of 18 April 2001 on copyright has not been adopted and has not come into force, the remuneration for public lending, required by Article 5(1) of Directive 92/100 as a condition for permitting derogation from the exclusive right laid down in Article 1 of Directive 92/100, is not paid. Articles 1 and 5 of Directive 92/100 have therefore not been correctly applied.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61


title: Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-160/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 208/5
     90/313/EC ( ) of 7 July 1990 on freedom of access to             comply with the Directive, and to inform the Commission
     information on the environment, the Hellenic Republic            accordingly.
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
     and that Directive,                                              Since the Hellenic Republic has not hitherto informed the
                                                                      Commission of the adoption of those measures,
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       notwithstanding the letter before action of 9 August 1993
                                                                      and the reasoned opinion of 7 June 1994 addressed to it, the
                                                                      Commission seeks by this application a declaration that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
In accordance with Article 9 of Directive 91 / 156/EC the
                                                                      third paragraph of Article 1 89 and under the first paragraph
                                                                      of Article 5 of the Treaty, and under the provisions of the
Member States were required by 1 April 1993 to adopt the              Directive .
laws , regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with the Directive, and to inform the Commission               ( ] ) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
accordingly.
Since the Hellenic Republic has not hitherto informed
the Commission of the adoption of those measures,
notwithstanding the letter before action of 12 March 1993
and the reasoned opinion of 1 9 July 1 994 addressed to it, the
                                                                      Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Commission by this application seeks a declaration that the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                                 ( Case C-161 /95 )
third paragraph of Article 1 89 and under the first paragraph                                      ( 95/C 208/ 11 )
of Article 5 of the Treaty, and under the provisions of the
Directive .                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(') OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990 , p . 56 .                            22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the office of Yiorgos Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                      Centre, Kirchberg .
Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the                The applicant claims that the Court should :
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 — declare that, by omitting to adopt and communicate to
                        ( Case C-160/95 )                                   the Commission within the requisite period of time the
                          ( 95/C 208/ 10 )                                  laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            necessary in order to comply with Council Directive
                                                                            91 /271 /EC ( l ) of 21 March 1991 concerning urban
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                  waste water treatment, the Hellenic Republic has failed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that
22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European                               Directive,
Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg          — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
at the office of Yiorgos Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      In accordance with Article 9 of Directive 91 /271 /EC the
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Member States were required by 30 June 1993 to adopt the
— declare that, by omitting to adopt and communicate to               laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    the Commission within the requisite period of time the            comply with the Directive, and to inform the Commission
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions                   accordingly.
    necessary in order to comply with Council Directive               Since the Hellenic Republic has not hitherto informed the
     91 / 156/EC (') of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
                                                                      Commission of the adoption of those measures,
     75/442/EC on waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                      notwithstanding the letter before action of 9 August 1993
    fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that               and the reasoned opinion of 25 May 1994 addressed to it,
    Directive,
                                                                      the Commission seeks by this application a declaration that
                                                                      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      the third paragraph of Article 189 and under the first
                                                                      paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, and under the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   provisions of the Directive .
In accordance with Article 9 of Directive 91 / 156/EC the             (») OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
Member States were required by 1 April 1993 to adopt the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to


title: Case C-331/02: Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
9.11.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 274/21
      installations or, in any event, by failing to notify such         Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 15 of this Directive;
                                                                        The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   measures in order to comply with the directive for the entirety
                                                                        of its territory is not disputed.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
                                                                        of the provisions adopted and brought into force to comply
                                                                        with the directive concerned for Gibraltar and since the
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to          Commission is in possession of no other information enabling
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by           it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted and
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the           brought into force the necessary provisions, it is compelled to
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period           assume that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such
expired on 1 April 2001 without Ireland havthe conclusions              provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the
of the Commission.ing enacted the provisions necessary to               directive.
comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.
Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-                         Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United                  mission of the European Communities against the United
                               Kingdom                                                               Kingdom
                         (Case C-331/02)                                                          (Case C-332/02)
                         (2002/C 274/36)                                                          (2002/C 274/37)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Septem-
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Septem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                        represented by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt and bring into force
      for Gibraltar the laws, regulations and administrative            1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      1999/30/EC ( 1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values               Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
      for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of                     limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
      nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air or, in             due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and
      any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the                  installations or, in any event, by failing to notify such
      Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                     provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of
      Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil fully its obligations             Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil fully
      under this Directive.                                                   its obligations under Article 15 of this Directive;
2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                        2)    order the United Kingdom to the pay the costs.


title: Case C-305/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia, Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the case of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 333/13
— Infringement of Community law, inasmuch as the contest-                  1. Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
     ed order denied the appellants a form of effective legal                  1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
     protection, contrary to the provisions of Article 6 of the                supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
     European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights                    lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directi-
     in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European                ve 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
     Union, by wrongly regarding the preliminary ruling pro-                   taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that
     cedure as an obligatory means of legal protection of the                  the administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate
     interests of individuals.                                                 for registration of ‘other company documents’ for each of
                                                                               the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
                                                                               sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
                                                                               partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private
                                                                               limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?
                                                                           2. Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                         munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the
Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia,                       sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the                           sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA                      according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
                 against Ministero delle Finanze                               that Law entered into force (2.5% per annum) and not
                                                                               according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
                 (Cases C-303/99 and C-304/99)                                 respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
                                                                               subsequently amended?
                          (1999/C 333/27)
                                                                           (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
Terza Sezione Civile, of 30 July 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 12 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA
against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question:
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                 Hamburg by order of that court of 29 April 1999 in the
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10              case of Banque Internationale pour l’Afrique Occidentale
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969                 S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt für Großunterneh-
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       men in Hamburg
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                        (Case C-306/99)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                                           (1999/C 333/29)
limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                         European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
                                                                           Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) of 29 April 1999, which
                                                                           was received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Banque Internationale pour
                                                                           l’Afrique Occidentale S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt
                                                                           für Großunternehmen in Hamburg on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia,                   I. Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling
Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the case
      of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                           Does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction in the procedure
                                                                           for preliminary rulings under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (old
                          (Case C-305/99)                                  version) (Article 234 EC in the version in force from 1 May
                                                                           1999 under the Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997 (new
                          (1999/C 333/28)                                  version)) to interpret the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC
                                                                           of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11, ‘the Directive’) not only
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,                 where there is doubt as to the application in conformity with
Jerza Sezione Civile, of 30 July 1999, received at the Court               the Directive of the national commercial law on accounts of
Registry on 12 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                capital companies [in this case, Paragraph 264 et seq. of the
case of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze on the              German Handelsgesetzbuch (Commercial Code, ‘the HGB’)],
following questions:                                                       but also:


title: Case F-40/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2008 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission (Staff cases — Open competition — Failure to include candidate's name on the reserve list — Equal treatment)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/72

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2008 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission
   (Case F-40/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Open competition - Failure to include candidate's name on the reserve list - Equal treatment)
   (2008/C 209/132)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Cécile Baudelet-Leclaire (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Korving, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of competition EPSO/AST/7/05 — Field 2 — Project/Contract management on the grounds of the alleged discrimination between internal candidates from the Community institutions and external candidates
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               The parties are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 28


title: Case C-409/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Gábor Csonka, Tibor Isztli, Dávid Juhász, János Kiss, Csaba Szontágh v Magyar Állam (Use of motor vehicles — Insurance against civil liability — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 1(4), first subparagraph — Insolvency of the insurer — No payment of compensation by the body providing compensation)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Gábor Csonka, Tibor Isztli, Dávid Juhász, János Kiss, Csaba Szontágh v Magyar Állam
   (Case C-409/11) (1)

   (Use of motor vehicles - Insurance against civil liability - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4), first subparagraph - Insolvency of the insurer - No payment of compensation by the body providing compensation)
   2013/C 252/09
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gábor Csonka, Tibor Isztli, Dávid Juhász, János Kiss, Csaba Szontágh

      Defendant: Magyar Állam

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360) — Obligation for the Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability cover the whole of the territory of the Community — Withdrawal of a motor vehicle insurance company’s operating licence, giving rise to an obligation on the part of individuals who had concluded contracts with that insurance company to answer personally, using their own assets, for the damage they caused to others — State liability in cases of incorrect transposition of a directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, read in the light of Article 1(4) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as not including, among the obligations which that provision imposes on Member States, that of establishing a body to ensure that compensation is provided to victims of road accidents in situations where, although the persons responsible for the damage had taken out insurance covering their civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, the insurer has become insolvent.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case F-115/14: Action brought on 22 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/55

         Action brought on 22 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-115/14)
   (2015/C 007/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, declaration of illegality of Article 9 of the General Provisions for implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 and, second, annulment of the decisions to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant into the European Union pension scheme pursuant to the new GIP.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Make a declaration of illegality in respect of Article 9 of the General Provisions for implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decisions of 31 January 2014 and of 13 March 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to her entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the EU institutions, pursuant to the General Provisions for implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.