title: Case T-425/03: Action brought on 17 December 2003 by AMS Advanced Medical Services against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 71/30                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
reassign the applicant to the post of Principal Adviser at the                Pleas in law and main arguments
statistical office of the European Communities (Eurostat) and
of the decision of 1 October 2003 reorganising Eurostat and,
second, for the Commission to undertake the steps necessary                   Applicant for Com-            The applicant.
to enable the applicant to resume her functions as Director as                munity trade mark:
soon as possible — the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 25 November 2003, the operative part of                      Community trade mark          The word and figurative mark
which is as follows:                                                          sought:                       ‘marmara’ for goods in Classes 29,
                                                                                30, 31, 32 and 33 (inter alia,
                                                                                meat, fish, poultry and game) —
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                                                      Application No 1 443 258.
                                                                              Proprietor of mark or         Marmara Zeytin Tarim Satis
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                     sign cited in the oppo-       Kooperatifleri Birligi.
                                                                              sition proceedings:
                                                                              Mark or sign cited in         The Community trade mark
                                                                              opposition:                   ‘MARMARABIRLIK’ for goods in
                                                                                Class 29 (inter alia, meat, fish,
                                                                                poultry and game) — Trade mark
                                                                                No 681 429.
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Marmara                                 Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition.
Import-Export GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-                           sition Division:
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                               (OHIM)                                         Decision of the Board of      The decision of the Opposition
                                                                              Appeal:                       Division was annulled and the
                                                                                appeal allowed.
                           (Case T-403/03)
                                                                              Pleas in law:                 There is no likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion between the two marks
                            (2004/C 71/57)
                                                                                within     the      meaning      of
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                           No 40/94.
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                          submitted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                       Action brought on 17 December 2003 by AMS Advanced
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                        Medical Services against the Office for Harmonisation in
15 December 2003 by Marmara Import-Export GmbH, Düssel-                         the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
dorf (Germany), represented by G. Rother and A. von
Arnswaldt, lawyers. Marmara Zeytin Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri
Birligi, Bursa (Turkey), was also a party to the proceedings                                           (Case T-425/03)
before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/58)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                                          submitted: German)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2003 (R 515/2002-1);
—     reject the opposition of the other party to the proceedings             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      before the Board of Appeal;                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                              17 December 2003 by AMS Advanced Medical Services,
—     stay proceedings until a decision has been given on the                 Mannheim (Germany), represented by G. Lindhofer, lawyer.
      application for a declaration of invalidity;                            American Medical Systems, Inc., Minnetonka (United States of
                                                                              America), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.                            of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 71/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                             and certain goods and services in
                                                                                Class 42 (hospitals, convalescent
                                                                                homes, sanatoriums; medical,
—     annul the contested decision (1) in so far as it refused                                          hygienic and beauty care; medical
      application No 1 358 480 for registration of a Com-                                               research, bacteriology and chemi-
      munity trade mark;                                                                                cal research; development of
                                                                                medicines, foodstuffs with phar-
—     grant application No 1 358 480 for registration of a                                              maceutical properties and other
      Community trade mark;                                                                             health care products, and con-
                                                                                ducting medical and clinical
                                                                                examinations, consultancy and
—     in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of                                           support for others for these activi-
      Appeal so that it may give a ruling on the matter;                                                ties; scientific and industrial
                                                                                research, in particular medical,
                                                                                bacteriological      or    chemical
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.                                                      research; opticians’ services; con-
                                                                                sultancy for health care pro-
                                                                                fessionals in the development,
                                                                                establishing and conducting of
                                                                                therapy programmes and the test-
                                                                                ing of the aforesaid therapy pro-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                         grammes by means of studies).
                                                                                Dismissal of the opponent’s
                                                                                appeal as to the remainder.
Applicant for Com-            The applicant
munity trade mark:                                                       Pleas in law:                  —     No likelihood of confusion
                                                                                within the meaning of
Community trade mark          The figurative mark ‘AMS                                                        Article 8(1) and (2) of Regu-
sought:                       Advanced Medical Services’ for                                                  lation (EC) No 40/94.
                              goods and services in Classes 5,
                              10 and 42 — Application No                                                —     No evidence of use of the
                              1 358 480.                                                                      opposed marks in the Euro-
                                                                                pean Community justifying
                                                                                refusal of the application.
Proprietor of mark or         American Medical Systems, Inc.
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                      (1) Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                             Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             in Case R 671/2002-4.
Mark or sign cited in         The UK word mark ‘AMS’
opposition:                   (No 2 061 585), the figurative
                              mark ‘American Medical System’
                              registered in several States of the
                              European Union and the regis-
                              tered     word      marks      ‘AMS
                              AMBICOR’, ‘AMS SECURO-T’ and
                              ‘AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS’
                              for goods in Class 10.
                                                                         Action brought on 31 December 2003 by SIC-Sociedade
                                                                         Independente de Comunicação, S.A. against the Com-
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the trade mark appli-                       mission of the European Communities
sition Division:              cation in respect of goods in
                              Class 10. Rejection of the oppo-
                              sition in so far as the application                                (Case T-442/03)
                              concerns goods and services in
                              Classes 5 and 42.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/59)
Decision of the Board of      Refusal of the trade mark appli-
Appeal:                       cation in respect of certain goods                          (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                              in Class 5 (Pharmaceutical, vet-
                              erinary and sanitary preparations;
                              dietetic substances adapted for
                              medical use; plasters, materials for
                              dressings; material for stopping           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                              teeth, dental wax; disinfectants)          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-27/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 December 1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte: Omega Air Ltd

text:
8.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 102/13
a) Is a direct, extraordinary, periodic tax (0.75 % per annum;             imposed by the Regulation but aeroplanes wholly re-engined
     Decree-Law No 394/92, converted into Law No 461/92,                   with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three are
     extended by Decree-Law No 564/94, converted into Law                  subject to prohibitions, having regard in particular to:
     No 656/94 and extended by Law No 549/95) compatible
     with Community law, and in particular with Directive
     No 69/335/EEC? (1)                                                    (i) the duty to give reasons under Article 253 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty;
b) Having regard to the teleological criterion which, EEC                  (ii) the general principle of proportionality;
     case-law shows, is to be preferred to literal and systematic
     criteria, is it lawful to levy the tax on assets upon capital,
     as defined under the heading ‘Passivo/A) Patrimonio netto/I           (iii) such rights as private parties may derive from the General
     Capitale’ in Article 2424(2) of the Civil Code, as amended                  Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and/or the Agreement on
     by Article 5 of Decree-Law No 127/91, where that capital                    Technical Barriers to Trade?
     has already been assessed to an initial tax on contributions
     in accordance with Presidential Decree No 131/86?
                                                                           (1) On the registration and operation within the Community of
                                                                                certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been
                                                                                modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of volume 1,
(1) Council Directive of 17 July 1969 (OJ, English Special Edition              Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International
    1969 (II), p. 405).                                                         Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (OJ L 115 of 4.5.1999,
(2) Article 2424 of the Civil Code sets out a number of balance sheet           p. 1) and Corrigendum (OJ L 120 of 8.5.1999, p. 47).
    items.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                           Gerichtshof by order of that court of 14 December 1999
                                                                           in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsan-
                                                                                stalt der Angestellten
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 December                                                   (Case C-28/00)
1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte:
                                                                                (2000/C 102/22)
                           Omega Air Ltd
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            (Case C-27/00)                                 European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
                                                                           hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 14 December 1999, which
                                                                           was received at the Court Registry on 1 February 2000, for a
                          (2000/C 102/21)                                  preliminary ruling in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsver-
                                                                           sicherungsanstalt der Angestellten on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                      Is Article 94(1) to (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown                   of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
Office), of 21 December 1999, which was received at the                    to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
Court Registry on 31 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling                members of their families moving within the Community (1),
in the case of the Queen against Secretary of State for the                as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte: Omega Air                No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2), as amended by Council
Ltd, on the following question:                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1249/92 of 30 April 1992 (3), to be
                                                                           interpreted as precluding a national provision under which,
                                                                           for the purpose of pension insurance, periods of child-rearing
                                                                           in the country are to be regarded as substitute qualifying
Is Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1)                 periods but such periods in a Member State of the EEA (in this
invalid insofar as it defines ‘recertificated civil subsonic jet           case Belgium) are to be regarded as such only where they occur
aeroplanes’ so that re-engined aeroplanes ‘with engines having             after that Agreement entered into force (1 January 1994) and,
a by-pass ratio of three or more’ are not subject to prohibitions          in addition, only on condition that entitlement to a cash benefit


title: Case T-300/10: Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/37

         Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission
   (Case T-300/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 29 April 2010 in so far as the applicant is thereby refused access to documents which have not been released or which have been the subject of only partial release;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges the Commission’s decision of 29 April 2010, by which its second application for access to undisclosed documents relating to the LIEN 97-2011 contract was refused in part.
   In support of its action the applicant submits, in essence, that the Commission was not entitled to deny the applicant access to the documents applied for on the basis of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) concerning protection of the decision-making process and protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual. The applicant further submits in this connection that there is an overriding public interest in release of the documents which have not yet been made available.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Judgment of the Court 25 July 2002 in Case C-459/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Mouvement contre le racisme, l'antisémitisme et la xénophobie ASBL (MRAX) v État belge (Third country nationals who are the spouse of a Member State national — Requirement for a visa — Right of entry for spouses not in possession of identity documents or a visa — Right of residence for spouses who have entered unlawfully — Right of residence for spouses who have entered lawfully but whose visa has expired when they apply for a residence permit — Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC and 73/148/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2317/95)

text:
28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 233/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            on movement and residence within the Community for workers
                                                                                of Member States and their families, Article 3 of Council
                                                                                Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of
                            25 July 2002                                          restrictions on movement and residence within the Community
                                                                                for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment
                                                                                and the provision of services and Council Regulation (EC)
in Case C-459/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                                No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 determining the third
from the Conseil d’État): Mouvement contre le racisme,
l’antisémitisme et la xénophobie ASBL (MRAX) v État                               countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when
                                                                                crossing the external borders of the Member States, read in the
                              belge ( 1)
                                                                                light of the principle of proportionality, a Member State may
                                                                                not send back at the border a third country national who is
(Third country nationals who are the spouse of a Member                           married to a national of a Member State and attempts to enter
State national — Requirement for a visa — Right of entry                          its territory without being in possession of a valid identity card
for spouses not in possession of identity documents or a                          or passport or, if necessary, a visa, where he is able to prove his
visa — Right of residence for spouses who have entered                            identity and the conjugal ties and there is no evidence to
unlawfully — Right of residence for spouses who have                              establish that he represents a risk to the requirements of public
entered lawfully but whose visa has expired when they apply                       policy, public security or public health within the meaning of
for a residence permit — Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/                           Article 10 of Directive 68/360 and Article 8 of Directive 73/
   EEC and 73/148/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2317/95)                             148.
                          (2002/C 233/04)
                                                                            2.    On a proper construction of Article 4 of Directive 68/360 and
                                                                                Article 6 of Directive 73/148, a Member State is not permitted
                    (Language of the case: French)                                to refuse issue of a residence permit and to issue an expulsion
                                                                                order against a third country national who is able to furnish
                                                                                proof of his identity and of his marriage to a national of a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            Member State on the sole ground that he has entered the
                   in the European Court Reports)                                 territory of the Member State concerned unlawfully.
                                                                            3.    On a proper construction of Articles 3 and 4(3) of Directive
In Case C-459/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                                68/360, Articles 3 and 6 of Directive 73/148 and Article 3(3)
EC by the Conseil d’État (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Mouve-                          of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the
                                                                                coordination of special measures concerning the movement and
ment contre le racisme, l’antisémitisme et la xénophobie ASBL
(MRAX) and État belge, on the interpretation of Articles 1(2),                    residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
                                                                                public policy, public security or public health, a Member State
3(3) and 9(2) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
                                                                                may neither refuse to issue a residence permit to a third country
1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
movement and residence of foreign nationals which are                             national who is married to a national of a Member State and
                                                                                entered the territory of that Member State lawfully, nor issue
justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public
                                                                                an order expelling him from the territory, on the sole ground
health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117),
                                                                                that his visa expired before he applied for a residence permit.
Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 Octo-
ber 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and
residence within the Community for workers of Member States
and their families (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485),         4.    On a proper construction of Articles 1(2) and 9(2) of Directive
Articles 3 and 6 of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May                        64/221, a foreign national married to a national of a Member
1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and                             State has the right to refer to the competent authority envisaged
residence within the Community for nationals of Member                            in Article 9(1) of that directive a decision refusing to issue a
States with regard to establishment and the provision of                          first residence permit or ordering his expulsion before the issue
services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14) and Council Regulation (EC)                       of the permit, including where he is not in possession of an
No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 determining the third                             identity document or where, requiring a visa, he has entered the
countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when                     territory of a Member State without one or has remained there
crossing the external borders of the Member States (OJ 1995                       after its expiry.
L 234, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rappor-
teur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                  (1 ) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 25 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    On a proper construction of Article 3 of Council Directive 68/
      360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions


title: Case C-529/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling made by order of the Tribunale di Cagliari of 20 October 2003 in the case between Marco Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

text:
20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 71/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           f)   infringement and failure to comply with the ‘practice for
                                                                               aid to farms in difficulty’ and with the ‘Community
—     The dispute concerns not the classification of the Saronic               guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring
      Gulf as a sensitive area but the lack of a system subjecting             firms in difficulty’;
      urban waste water from the wider Athens area to
      treatment more stringent than secondary treatment                   g)   breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
      before its discharge into a sensitive area.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.
—     It is an unquestionable fact that on expiry of the period           (2) OJ L 93 of 30.3.1985, p. 1.
      prescribed by the Commission in its reasoned opinion,
      but also up to the time when the present action was
      brought, urban waste water from the Psitallia plant did
      not receive treatment more stringent than secondary
      treatment.
                                                                          Action brought on 22 December 2003 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.                                         of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-538/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/11)
Reference for a preliminary ruling made by order of the
Tribunale di Cagliari of 20 October 2003 in the case                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
between Marco Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
              Regione Autonoma della Sardegna                             ties on 22 December 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell, of the
                         (Case C-529/03)                                  Commission’s Legal Service, and Horstpeter Kreppel, a labour
                                                                          court judge appointed to the Commission’s Legal Service under
                                                                          the exchange programme for national public servants, acting
                          (2004/C 71/10)                                  as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
A reference for a preliminary ruling was made to the Court of             1.   Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has
Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale                  infringed the principle of equal treatment for men and
di Cagliari on 20 October 2003 in proceedings between Marco                    women laid down under Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council
Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the Regione Autonoma                      Directive 76/207/EEC (1), and Clause 4 of the Framework
della Sardegna which was lodged at the Court Registry on                       Agreement on part-time work concluded between UNICE,
19 December 2003. The Tribunale di Cagliari seeks a ruling                     CEEP and the ETUC set out in the Annex to Council
on the validity of Commission Decision No 97/612 (1), having                   Directive 97/81/EC (2), in that it indirectly discriminates
regard to the following defects:                                               against women, who form the great majority of part-time
                                                                               employees working less than 18 hours a week in the
a)    lack of competence on the part of the Commission to                      German public sector,
      adopt the contested decision in infringement of the
      combined provisions of Articles 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37                   by excluding,
      and 38 EC;
                                                                               (a)   under Paragraph 14(2) of the Bundespersonalvertre-
b)    infringement of the provisions governing the procedure                         tungsgesetz (Federal Law on staff committees in
      provided for under Article 88(1) EC;                                           the public sector) and the equivalent regulations
                                                                                applying in the Länder of
c)    infringement of the provisions governing the procedure
                                                                                —     Bavaria
      provided for under Article 88(2) and (3) EC;
                                                                                —     Berlin
d)    failure to state reasons for the decision in application of
      the combined provisions of Articles 253, 88(3) and 87(1)                       —     Bremen
      EC;
                                                                                —     Hesse,
e)    infringement and erroneous application of Council Regu-
      lation No 797/85 (2) on improving the efficiency of                            part-time employees who normally work less than
      agricultural structures;                                                       18 hours a week, and


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance, Nivelles (9th Chamber), by judgment of that court of 3 November 1997 in the case of Belgocodex SA v. Belgian State (Case C-381/97)

text:
20 . 12 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 387/ 13
5 . Does the national court ( sitting in interlocutory                    8 . Is the answer to Question 7 different according to
     proceedings ) have jurisdiction, in circumstances such                     whether or not the content of the proposed decision is
     as those described in Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/                      consistent with higher rules of Community law ?
     89 Zuckerfabrik Siiderdithmarschen and Others and
     subsequent cases, to make an interim order requiring a
     Member State not to participate ( either actively or
     passively ) in the decision-making process within the
     Council of Ministers in the context of the second
     paragraph of Article 136 ?                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                          Premiere Instance, Nivelles ( 9th Chamber), by judgment of
6 . On the assumption that assessment of the                              that court of 3 November 1997 in the case of Belgocodex
     circumstances referred to in Question 5 is a matter for                                         SA v. Belgian State
     the Court of Justice, rather than the national court,                                            ( Case C-381 /97 )
     are the circumstances described in the judgment of                                                 ( 97/C 387/21 )
     17 October 1997 — page 7, first full paragraph, ('On
     the basis of various factors . . .') up to and including             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the second full paragraph on page 8 ( ending '. . .                  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
     excessively detrimental to the interests of the                      Premiere Instance ( Court of First Instance ), Nivelles ( 9th
     Community') — also in the light of the further                       Chamber), of 3 November 1997, which was received at
     reasoning in that judgment and in the judgment of                    the Court Registry on 7 November 1997, for a
     6 October 1997, such as to justify the injunction                    preliminary ruling in the case of Belgocodex SA v. Belgian
     referred to in Question 5 ?                                          State on the following questions :
7 . Does Article 5 of the EC Treaty — and more                            Does Article 2 of the First Council Directive 67/227/EEC
     specifically the principle of Community cooperation                  of 11 April 1967 (') on the harmonisation of legislation of
     with      other    Member       States  contained   therein —        Member States concerning turnover taxes, which
     preclude such an injunction by the court concerning                  establishes the principle of a common system of value
     the future participation of that Member State in the                  added tax, prevent a Member State — in this case Belgium
      decision-making process in that context, if                         — which has availed itself of the possibility provided for
                                                                           by Article 13 ( C ) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
      (a ) the Member State voted in favour of the Council                 EEC of 17 May 1977 (2 ) on the harmonization of
            proposal at issue, notwithstanding that it was                 legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes —
            aware that interlocutory proceedings were in                   Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
            progress at the time concerning its voting                     assessment, and has thus given its taxpayers the right to
            intentions in the European Council of ' Ministers              opt for taxation of certain lettings of immovable property,
            and                                                            from abolishing that right of option and thus
                                                                           reintroducing the exemption to its full extent in
      ( b ) those ( initial ) interlocutory proceedings culminated         subsequent legislation ?
            in such an injunction a few hours after the
            Member       State    had    voted  in  favour   of  the       (') OJ , English Special Edition 1967, p . 14 ; EE 09 FI, p . 3 .
            proposal ?                                                     (2 ) OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ; EE 09 FI, p . 54 .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Aalborg, by a letter of 7 February 1997 in the case of Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributører, acting for Egmont Film A/S, Buena Vista Home Entertainment A/S, Scanbox Danmark A/S, Metronome Video A/S, Polygram Records A/S, Nordisk Film Video A/S, Irish Video A/S and Warner Home Video Inc., v. Laserdisken, in the person of Hans Kristian Pedersen, Interveners: Sammenslutningen af Danske Filminstruktører, Michael Viuf Christiansen, Pioneer Electronics Denmark A/S and Videoforhandler Ove Jensen (Case C-61/97)

text:
No C 108/ 14          EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5 . 4 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Aalborg,               Commission of the European Communities was brought
by a letter of 7 February 1997 in the case of Foreningen af             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
danske Videogramdistributorer, acting for Egmont Film                   on 12 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
A/S, Buena Vista Home Entertainment A/S, Scanbox                        Communities, represented by Julian Currall, acting as
Danmark A/S, Metronome Video A/S, Polygram Records                      Agent, and Denis Waelbroeck, acting as advocate, with an
A/S, Nordisk Film Video A/S, Irish Video A/S and Warner                 address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
Home Video Inc., v. Laserdisken, in the person of Hans                  Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre .
Kristian Pedersen, Interveners: Sammenslutningen af Dan
ske Filminstruktorer, Michael Viuf Christiansen, Pioneer                The appellant claims that the Court should:
Electronics Denmark A/S and Videoforhandler Ove Jensen
                                                                        — annul the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996
                         ( Case C-61 /97)                                      by the Court of First Instance of the European
                           ( 97/C 108/25 )                                     Communities in Case T-33/95, Maria Lidia Lozano
                                                                               Palacios v. Commission of the European Communities,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         inasmuch as it was held in that judgment that the
European Communities by letter of 7 February 1997 from                         respondent to the appeal was entitled to the
Retten i Aalborg (Aalborg Court), which was received at                        installation allowance provided for by the first
the Court Registry on 12 February 1997, for a preliminary                      subparagraph of Article 5 ( 1 ) of Annex VII to the Staff
ruling in the case between Foreningen af danske Video                         Regulations merely because she was in receipt of the
gramdistributorer ( Association            of Danish Video                     expatriation allowance,
Distributors), acting for Egmont Film A/S and Others, and
                                                                        — make an appropriate order as to costs .
Laserdisken, in the person of Hans Kristian Pedersen,
Interveners: Sammenslutningen af Danske Filminstruktorer                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(Union of Danish Film Directors ) and Others on the
following questions :                                                   The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
                                                                        the mere fact that the respondent to the appeal was
Do Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with                     entitled to an expatriation allowance — because,
Article 36 , or Articles 85 to 86 preclude a person to                  technically, she fulfilled the conditions laid down in
whom the holder of the exclusive rights to a film has                   Article 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations —
transferred an exclusive manufacturing and distribution                 meant that she satisfied, de facto, the conditions rendering
 right in respect of copies of the film in one Member State             her eligible for the installation allowance . The
 from giving consent to the rental of his own releases while            Commission considers that it is clear from the wording of
 at the same time preventing the rental of imported releases            Article 71 of the Staff Regulations, from the heading
 which have been placed on the market in another Member                 under which that article appears in the Staff Regulations
 State, where the holder of exclusive manufacturing and                 and from the title of Section 3 of Annex VII, of which the
 distribution rights in copies of the film has transferred               first subparagraph of Article 5 ( 1 ) forms part, that, like
 ownership of copies with tacit acceptance that the copies              the other allowances covered by Section 3 , the installation
 will be rented out in that latter Member State ?
                                                                         allowance is not a sum automatically added to the salary
                                                                         of the person concerned but is intended to cover expenses
 In view of the fact that Council Directive 92/ 100/EEC ( ] )            actually incurred or which may be incurred. The effect
 of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right                   and purpose of the installation allowance also militate in
 and on certain rights relating to copyright in the field of             favour of that interpretation .
 intellectual property has entered into force, the same
 question is repeated on the basis that the Directive is
 applicable to the reply.
  (') OJ No L 346, 27. 11 . 1992, p. 61 .                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden, by judgment of that court of 7 February
                                                                          1997 in the case of 1 . Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and
                                                                                2 . BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik
                                                                                ( Case C-63/97 )
  Appeal brought on 12 February 1997 by the Commission
  of the European Communities against the judgment                                                   ( 97/C 108/27)
  delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Second Chamber
  of the Court of First Instance of the European                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  Communities     in   Case T-33/95        between Maria Lidia            European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
  Lozano Palacios and the Commission of the European                      der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ), of
                              Communities                                 7 February 1997, which was received at the Court
                         ( Case C-62/97 P                                 Registry on 13 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                          the case of 1 . Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and 2 . BMW
                             ( 97/C 108/26 )
                                                                          Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik on the following
                                                                          questions :
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
   1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First                       ( a ) In view of the fact that, with regard to the rights
   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-33/95                         associated with a trade mark, Directive 89/104/EEC ( J )
   between    Maria     Lidia      Lozano     Palacios   and    the              contains a transitional legal provision only for the


title: Case T-21/02: Action brought on 25 January 2002 by Giuseppe Atzeni and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/25
1.    The applications for interim measures are dismissed.                 —    the aid in question must be regarded as having been in
                                                                                existence ever since 1928. In adopting the contested
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                   decision, the Commission omitted the entire procedure
                                                                                provided for by the first paragraph of Article 88;
                                                                           —    infringement of the Community rules concerning
                                                                                improvements in the efficiency of agricultural structure
                                                                                and of the ‘Community guidelines on State aid for
                                                                                rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’.
Action brought on 25 January 2002 by Giuseppe Atzeni
and Others against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                    The applicants also plead failure to comply with the obligation
                                                                           to provide a statement of reasons.
                           (Case T-21/02)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 20.
                          (2002/C 118/40)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Michel Sautelet
European Communities on 25 January 2002 by the applicants                    against the Commission of the European Communities
specified above, represented by Giovanni Dore and Fabio
Ciulli, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-25/02)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 118/41)
—     pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, declare unlawful,
      and consequently annul in its entirety, Commission                                      (Language of the case: French)
      Decision 612/97, alternatively annul the same in so far
      as it provides for the recovery of the aid granted to the
      applicants by the Italian State, and order the Commission
      to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Michel
                                                                           Sautelet, residing at Kirchberg (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
This action is directed against the same decision as that
contested in Case T-4/02 Arca Delio eredi and Others v
Commission (1)                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —    annul the express decision No 39090 of 6 November
In support of their claims, the applicants plead:                               2001 fixing the compensation for the non-material
                                                                                damage suffered by the applicant in the sum of
—     lack of competence on the part of the defendant,                          1 500euros;
      inasmuch as the competition rules are not in principle
      applicable in the agriculture sector. As regards the
      provisions of Regulation No 26/62, the applicants main-              —    award the applicant the sum of 12 394,68 euros (rep-
      tain that, in the present case, no aid was granted, either                resenting the sum of LUF 500 000) by way of compen-
      for production or for trade in the agricultural sector;                   sation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of
      instead, what was intended was merely the re-establish-                   the lateness in drawing up his staff report for the period
      ment of the necessary liquidity for agricultural undertak-                from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
      ings facing objective difficulties, as expressly identified by
      the Region of Sardinia. Moreover, that regulation provides           —    annul the express decision No 44024 of 15 November
      that the rules concerning aid are applicable only in                      2001 declaring inadmissible complaint No 497/01 of
      relation to the matters covered by Article 88(1) and the                  31 October 2001, registered by the General Secretariat of
      first sentence of Article 88(3);                                          the Commission on 5 November 2001;


title: Case T-125/01: Action brought on 8 June 2001 by José Martí Peix against Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.9.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/21
Action brought on 8 June 2001 by José Martı́ Peix against                2.   In the alternative, if the Court of First Instance should
         Commission of the European Communities                               take the view that there in nothing in the applicable
                                                                              Community legislation to indicate that the time-limit has
                                                                              expired, the applicant claims that the decision implies
                         (Case T-125/01)                                      that there has been a lack of administrative diligence,
                                                                              since the applicant is now bereft of judicial protection
                                                                              and legal certainty and its legitimate expectations have
                         (2001/C 245/35)                                      been dashed and the basic principles enshrined in the
                                                                              Community’s case-law have been disregarded.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              Likewise, the time which has elapsed between the facts
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              complained of by the Commission took place and the
European Communities on 8 June 2001 by José Martı́ Peix,
                                                                              date on which the contested decision was adopted leads
residing in Huelva (Spain), represented by Ramón Garcı́a-
                                                                              to the conclusion that the institution has exceeded the
Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores Domı́nguez Pérez.
                                                                              reasonable period in which to adopt a decision so
                                                                              detrimental to the interests of the applicant. In particular,
                                                                              instead of initiating a procedure for reduction immedi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   ately after the applicant informed it of the facts in the
                                                                              context of the Regular Activity Reports, the Commission
                                                                              took no action whatsoever and allowed nearly six years
—     uphold the present application;                                         to elapse.
—     annul Commission Decision C(2001)679 final of
      19 March 2001, reducing aid granted to José Martı́ Peix
      SA by Commission Decision C(91)2474 of 16 December                 3.   In the event that the Court should find that the Com-
      1991, amended by Commission Decision C(93)1131                          mission adopted the decision within a reasonable time,
      final/4 of 12 May 1993, for a project relating to the                   the applicant submits that that decision is null and void
      setting-up of a mixed company in the fishing sector                     as regards the substance on the following grounds:
      (SM/ESP/17/91);
—     make any other order as appropriate requiring the
      Commission of the European Communities to comply                        —     with regard to one of the vessels, which sank,
      with its obligations under Article 233 EC and, in particu-                    inasmuch as the withdrawal of assistance was
      lar, to re-examine the situation;                                             decided upon after an error of assessment was
                                                                                committed, since the Commission states that it was
                                                                                the recipient of ‘false information’, which is not true.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                           Moreover, the Commission bases its decision on the
      pay the costs.                                                                obligation to replace the lost vessel, an obligation
                                                                                which was not written into the legislation applicable
                                                                                at the time;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              —     so far as concerns the remaining vessels, the Com-
By this application the applicants seek the annulment of a                          mission penalises the failure to communicate their
decision taken by the Commission reducing the financial                             departure from the waters of the country referred to
assistance granted to a project relating to the setting-up of a                     in the decision granting the assistance, a merely
mixed company in the fishing sector. The applicant claims                           administrative requirement, while disregarding the
that the decision is null and void inasmuch as the alleged                          fact that the aforementioned vessels continue to
irregularities found by the Commission do not exist. The                            operate under the aegis of another mixed company
applicant bases itself on four grounds:                                             and continue to pursue the objects which prompted
                                                                                the creation of that company.
1.    The applicant claims that the decision is null and void
      since, at the time when it was adopted, it was out of time
      in order to base its reduction of aid on the facts. Indeed,
      the Commission has failed to take any administrative
      action at all on the case and has reduced the assistance
      only after the statutory time-limit.


title: Case C-109/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Anke- og Kæremålsudvalg of the Højesteret by order of 21 March 2000 in the case of Tele Danmark A/S v HK, acting on behalf of Marianne Brandt-Nielsen.

text:
27.5.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/27
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du                   Are advertising services as mentioned in Article 9(2)(e) of
Travail, Mons (Third Chamber), Belgium, by judgment of                    Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) to be understood, as
that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of Caterina                       regards operations for the purpose of promoting the sale of
        Insalaca v Office National des Pensions (ONP)                     goods or services, only as services supplied directly and
                                                                          invoiced by the supplier of services to a taxable advertiser,
                         (Case C-107/00)                                  excluding services of the same nature supplied indirectly to the
                                                                          advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn invoices
                                                                          them to that advertiser?
                         (2000/C 149/49)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du                     (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Travail (Labour Court), Mons (Third Chamber), of 13 March                     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 March                    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145 of 13. 6.1977, p. 1).
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caterina Insalaca
v Office National des Pensions (ONP), on the following
questions:
1. Does the national rule governing the calculation of a
     survivor’s pension and establishing a restriction of the
     ceiling in respect of overlapping of old-age and survivor’s
     pensions where the surviving spouse can claim a survivor’s
     pension payable by another Member State constitute a
     provision on reduction within the meaning of Articles 46a            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Anke- og
     and 46b of Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1)?                Kæremålsudvalg of the Højesteret by order of 21 March
                                                                          2000 in the case of Tele Danmark A/S v HK, acting on
2. If so, must Articles 46a and 46b be interpreted as                                    behalf of Marianne Brandt-Nielsen.
     authorising the national institution which applies the
     provision against overlapping to take account of the
     survivor’s pension granted under the scheme of another                                         (Case C-109/00)
     Member State in order to reduce the ceiling in respect of
     overlapping of old-age and survivor’s pensions provided
     for by national legislation?                                                                  (2000/C 149/51)
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the application of social security schemes to employed persons,       European Communities by order of 21 March 2000 by the
    to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving      Anke- og Kæremålsudvalg (Appeals and Objections Com-
    within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).                           mittee) of the Højesteret (Danish Supreme Court), which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 23 March 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Tele Danmark A/S v HK,
                                                                          acting on behalf of Marianne Brandt-Nielsen, on the following
                                                                          questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French                        Question 1
Conseil d’État, Judicial Division, by decision of that court
of 9 February 2000 in the case of Syndicat des Producteurs
Indépendants (Union of independent producers) (SPI) v                     Does Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1) of
    Ministry for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry                   9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
                                                                          equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
                         (Case C-108/00)                                  employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
                                                                          conditions and/or Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2)
                                                                          of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to
                         (2000/C 149/50)                                  encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of
                                                                          pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    or are breastfeeding, or other provisions in those directives or
European Communities by a decision of the French Conseil                  elsewhere in Community law preclude a worker from being
d’État, Judicial Division of 9 February 2000, which was                  dismissed on the ground of pregnancy in the case where: (i) the
received at the Court Registry on 23 March 2000, for a                    woman in question was recruited as a temporary worker for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Syndicat des Producteurs                limited period; (ii) when she entered into the contract of
Indépendants (Union of independent producers) (SPI) v Minis-              employment, the worker knew that she was pregnant but did
try for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry on the following           not inform the employer of that fact; and (iii) her pregnancy
question. The French Conseil d’État, Judicial Division, asks the         meant that the worker was unable to work for a significant
Court of Justice to rule on the following question:                       portion of her period of employment?
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/28               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
Question 2                                                                 whose cooking salt content, expressed in terms of sodium
                                                                           chloride and calculated on the basis of the dry matter,
Does the fact that the employment occurs in a very large                   exceeds 2.0 %, compatible with the requirements of Article
undertaking and that that undertaking frequently uses tempor-              28 of the Treaty on European Union and are they capable
ary workers have any bearing on the answer to Question 1?                  of being justified under Article 30 of that instrument?
                                                                       2. Are Articles 1.3 and 8 of the Royal Decree of 2 September
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                           1985 on bread and other bakery products and Article 14
(2) OJ L 348 of 28.11.1992, p. 1.                                          of the Law of 24 January 1977 on the protection of
                                                                           consumers’ health in relation to foodstuffs and other
                                                                           products compatible with the requirements of Article 28
                                                                           of the Treaty on European Union and are they capable of
                                                                           being justified under Article 30 of that instrument?
                                                                       3. Are Articles 4(2) and 5 of the Royal Decree of 17 April
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Court of First                  1980 concerning advertising of foodstuffs and Article 14
Instance, Brussels, (55th Chamber), 28 March 2000, in the                  of the Law of 24 January 1977 on the protection of
Case of Christina Bellamy v Procureur du Roi — Party                       consumers’ health in relation to foodstuffs and other
       liable in civil law: English Shop Wholesale SA                      products compatible with the requirements of Article 28
                                                                           of the Treaty on European Union and are they capable of
                         (Case C-123/00)                                   being justified under Article 30 of that instrument?
                         (2000/C 149/52)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Court of First Instance,
Brussels, 28 March 2000, received at the Court Registry on                    Removal from the register of Case C-20/99 (1)
31 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Christina Bellamy v Procureur du Roi — Party liable in civil                                   (2000/C 149/53)
law: English Shop Wholesale SA, on the following questions:
                                                                       By order of 25 January 2000 the President of the Court of
1. Are Articles 1.3 and 8 of the Royal Decree of 2 September           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    1985 on bread and other bakery products and Article 14             from the register of Case C-20/99: Commission of the
    of the Law of 24 January 1977 on the protection of                 European Communities v Republic of Austria.
    consumers’ health in relation to foodstuffs and other
    products, in so far as they prohibit the marketing of bread        (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case T-382/12: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2014  — Kampol v OHIM — Colmol (Nobel) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Nobel — Earlier national word mark NOBEL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2014 — Kampol v OHIM — Colmol (Nobel)
   (Case T-382/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Nobel - Earlier national word mark NOBEL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 253/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kampol sp. z o.o. (Świdnica, Poland) (represented by: J. Kępiński, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Colmol-Colchões, SA (Oliveira de Azeméis, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2012 (Case R 2286/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Colmol — Colchões, SA and Kampol-K. Humiński & syn sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kampol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012


title: Case C-127/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Articles 21 TFEU and 63 TFEU — EEA Agreement — Articles 28 and 40 — Taxation of inheritances and gifts — Distribution of powers of taxation — Discrimination as between residents and non-residents — Discrimination according to where the immovable property is situated — Burden of proof)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/3

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-127/12) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Articles 21 TFEU and 63 TFEU - EEA Agreement - Articles 28 and 40 - Taxation of inheritances and gifts - Distribution of powers of taxation - Discrimination as between residents and non-residents - Discrimination according to where the immovable property is situated - Burden of proof))
      (2014/C 395/03)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, R. Lyal and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  declares that, by applying different tax treatment to donations and successions between beneficiaries and donees resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, between bequeathers resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, and between donations and similar transfers of immovable property situated within and outside of Spain, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

                  2)

                  dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3)

                  orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case T-674/14: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2015 — SEA v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/61

         Order of the General Court of 2 September 2015 — SEA v Commission
   (Case T-674/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/84)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case C-201/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 28 March 2002, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Ex parte: Delena Wells

text:
27.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 180/13
3.    In the circumstances of the present case, does the receipt           of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
      of child care by the First Appellant constitute services for         (Administrative Court) dated 28 March 2002, which was
      purposes of Council Directive 73/148/EEC?                            received at the Court Registry on 6 May 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
                                                                           Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Ex parte:
4.    In the circumstances of the present case, is the First
                                                                           Delena Wells, on the following questions:
      Appellant precluded from residing in the host state
      pursuant to Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC
      because her resources are provided exclusively by her
      third country national parent who accompanies her?
                                                                           (a)   Whether an approval of a new set of conditions on an
5.    On the special facts of this case does Article 18(1) EC                    existing permission granted by an Interim Development
      give the First Appellant the right to enter and reside in                  Order (‘old mining permission’) pursuant to section 22
      the host member state even when she does not qualify                       and Schedule 2 of the Planning and Compensation Act
      for residence in the host state under any other provision                  1991 is a ‘development consent’ for the purposes of the
      of EU law?                                                                 EIA Directive (1)?
6.    If so, does the Second Appellant consequently enjoy the
      right to remain with the First Appellant, during that time
      in the host state?                                                   (b) Whether, following the approval of a new scheme of
                                                                                conditions on an IDO ‘old mining permission’ under the
                                                                                Planning and Compensation Act 1991, the approval of
7.    In this context, what is the effect of the principle of                    further matters required under the new scheme of
      respect for fundamental human rights under Community                       conditions is itself capable of being a ‘development
      law claimed by the Appellants, in particular where the                     consent’ for the purposes of the EIA Directive?
      Appellants rely on Article 8 ECHR that everyone has the
      right to respect for his private and family life and his
      home in conjunction with Art 14 ECHR given that the
      First Appellant cannot live in China with the Second
      Appellant and her father and brother?                                (c)   If the answer to (a) is ‘yes’ but (b) is ‘no’, is the member
                                                                                state nevertheless under a continuing duty to remedy its
                                                                                failure to require EIA, and if so, how?
(1) Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition
    of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community
    for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and
    the provision of services, OJ L 172, 28.6.1973, p. 14.
(2) Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of           (d) Whether (i) it is open to individual citizens to challenge
    residence. OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26.                                       the state’s failure to require EIA, or whether (ii) that may
                                                                                be prohibited under the limitations imposed by the Court
                                                                                on the doctrine of direct effect e.g. by ‘horizontal direct
                                                                                effect’ or by the imposition of burdens or obligations on
                                                                                individuals by an emanation of the state?
                                                                           (e)   If the answer to (d)(ii) is ‘yes’ what are the limits of such
                                                                                prohibitions on direct effect in the present circumstances
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                          and what steps may the UK lawfully take consistently
Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division                              with the EIA Directive?
(Administrative Court), by order of that court dated
28 March 2002, in the case of The Queen against Secretary
of State for Transport, Local Government and the
                 Regions, Ex parte: Delena Wells
                          (Case C-201/02)                                  (1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
                                                                               of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
                                                                               environment. OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
                          (2002/C 180/22)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 May 2000 in Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — None)

text:
23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 273/13
dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     Action brought on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips
Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, v                        Electronics N.V. against the Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                                         Union.
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for suspension
of operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000
on withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for                                          (Case T-177/00)
human use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                          (2000/C 273/23)
28 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000 on                               (Language of the case: English)
      withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
      use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) is suspended
      with regard to the applicant.                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                  Communities on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips Elec-
                                                                           tronics N.V., represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Filip
                                                                           Ragolle of Stanbrook-Hooper, Brussels.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC, the
                                                                                Council’s decision to reject the Commission proposal for
                                                                                a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                     duty on imports of certain parts of television camera
                              INSTANCE                                           systems originating in Japan;
                                                                           —     order, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288(2) EC, the
                          of 18 May 2000
                                                                                Council to make good any damage caused to the applicant
                                                                                by its unlawful rejection of the Commission’s proposal
in Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the                          for a Regulation or, alternatively, its failure to impose
                     European Communities                                        adequate protective measures before the expiry of the
                                                                                15 month deadline;
     (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — None)                     —     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
                                                                                Council.
                          (2000/C 273/22)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           The present application arises out of the fact that the Council
In Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                    did not adopt the Commission’s proposal of 7 April 2000 for
Commission of the European Communities, in service at the                  a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, residing at Besozzo (Italy),           on imports of certain parts of television camera systems
represented by V. Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar, of Via Speroni 14,          originating in Japan (COM(2000) 195 final). According to the
Varese, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                   applicant, the Council’s failure to achieve a simple majority in
G. Valsesia) — application for interim measures in the form of             support of the Commission’s proposal combined with the
suspension of operation of the decision removing him from                  expiry of the 15-month time limit of Article 6(9) of the Basic
his post, adopted by the Commission on 30 September 1999                   Regulation (1) amounts to a definitive negative decision, which
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order               it challenges in the present case.
on 18 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           The applicant’s case for annulment falls basically into two
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                   alternative parts. On the one hand, the applicant argues that,
                                                                           at the end of the 15-month time limit, the Council ultimately
2.    The costs are reserved.                                              had no power to reject the Commission’s proposal, since it
                                                                           had previously failed to involve itself in the fact finding and
                                                                           procedural aspects of the case. Under the current Basic
                                                                           Regulation, the Council has limited itself to the possibility of
                                                                           amending some of the modalities of the proposal, while


title: Case T-673/11: Action brought on 29 December 2011 — Sigla v OHIM (VIPS CLUB)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/18

         Action brought on 29 December 2011 — Sigla v OHIM (VIPS CLUB)
   (Case T-673/11)
   2012/C 65/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sigla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               find the present application and the accompanying documents to be duly lodged and admissible, take note that an action has been brought against the Decision of 6 October 2011 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 641/2011-1 and, following the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment annulling the abovementioned decision and expressly order the Office to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VIPS CLUB’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal to register the mark applied for

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the sign applied for is not descriptive and has distinctive character.