title: Case F-45/07: Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Wolfgang A. Mandt v European Parliament

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/43

         Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Wolfgang A. Mandt v European Parliament
   (Case F-45/07)
   (2007/C 183/84)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Wolfgang A. Mandt (Kreuztal, Germany) (represented by: B. Kolb, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 8 February 2007 to reduce the applicant's survivor's pension by 50 %;

               —

               Order the defendant, with retrospective effect from 1 April 2006, and monthly henceforth, to pay the applicant the further 50 % of the survivor's pension of his deceased wife Gisela Neumann.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Parliament cut the applicant's survivor's pension as the widower of Gisela Neumann with reference to non-recognition of the Belgian decree of divorce which the deceased obtained against her first husband in 1995.
   The claim is brought against the non-recognition of that decree and against Council Regulation No 2201/2203/EC of 24 November 2003. The applicant argues that he is the sole ‘surviving spouse’, since the marriage between himself and the deceased came into existence in a legally effective way (Art. 18 Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations).


title: Case T-477/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos and Others v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/50

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos and Others v Commission
   (Case T-477/14)
   2014/C 261/78
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos, SL (Coruña, Spain); Blumaq, SA (Castellón, Spain); Grupo Ibérica de Congelados, SA (Vigo, Spain); and Inversiones Rentaragon, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case T-20/03: Action brought on 22 January 2003 by KAHLA/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/29
Decision of the Board of       Appeal upheld and opposition                In support of its application, the applicant submits a violation
Appeal:                        dismissed in its entirety                   of Article 81 EC Treaty and a serious error of assessment in
                                                                           fact and in law, as well as an infringement of essential
Grounds of claim:              Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)           procedural requirements, such as the duty to state reasons.
                               of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-          According to the applicant, the Commission has not proven
                               lihood of confusion and associ-             to the requisite legal standard that the applicant agreed with
                               ation between the trade marks at            Nintendo to hinder parallel trade.
                               issue)
                                                                           The applicant furthermore submits a breach of the principles
                                                                           of proper administration, such as the principle of equality and
                                                                           the principle of proportionality. In this respect, the applicant
                                                                           also invokes a violation of the duty to state reasons. The
                                                                           applicant states that the Commission needs to have regard to
                                                                           the gravity and the duration of the infringement when
                                                                           establishing the fine. According to the applicant, the Com-
                                                                           mission has not acted in accordance with these principles
                                                                           because there is no convincing evidence that the applicant
Action brought on 17 January 2003 by CD-Contact Data                       entered into an agreement with Nintendo and, in any event,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       the alleged infringements by the applicant had a much more
                                                                           limited impact and shorter duration than the infringements of
                                                                           Nintendo and its other distributors.
                          (Case T-18/03)
                          (2003/C 70/46)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Action brought on 22 January 2003 by KAHLA/Thüringen
                                                                           Porzellan GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          (Case T-20/03)
European Communities on 17 January 2003 by CD-Contact
Data, Burglengenfeld, Germany, represented by Mr J. K. de                                           (2003/C 70/47)
Pree and Mr R. Wesseling, Lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2002 in                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      Cases COMP/35.587 PO Video games, COMP/35.706                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega-                      European Communities on 22 January 2003 by KAHLA/
      Nintendo in as far as addressed to the applicant (in                 Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, having its registered office in
      particular articles 1 and 3) in whole or in part;                    Kahla (Germany), represented by M. Schütte and S. Zühlke,
                                                                           Rechtsanwälte.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) Set aside Article 1(2) of Commission Decision
                                                                                C(2002)4040 final of 30 October 2002 concerning State
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  aid provided by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and
                                                                                KAHLA/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (Proceeding C 62/
                                                                                2000) in so far as that provision adversely affects the
The applicant is active in the fields of distributing and                        applicant;
republishing entertainment software. Between April and
December 1997, the applicant acted as exclusive distributor                (2) Set aside Article 2 in so far as it relates to the measures
for Nintendo products in Belgium and Luxemburg. The                              referred to in point (1);
Commission alleges that the applicant entered into an agree-
ment and/or restricted practice with Nintendo to restrict                  (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
parallel export.                                                                 ings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/30               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant did not receive a number of the measures listed.
                                                                         The demand for repayment of aid which was not granted thus
                                                                         patently infringes substantive law.
The applicant is a porcelain-manufacturing undertaking based
in Kahla, Thüringen (Thuringia). As the investor which made
the highest offer, it acquired machinery, plant and property
from the receiver responsible for administering the assets
of Kahla Porzellan GmbH. In its contested decision, the
Commission classified a number of measures in favour of
Kahla Porzellan GmbH and the applicant as constituting aid
and declared them to be incompatible with the Common                     Action brought on 30 January 2003 by Antonio Aresu
Market.                                                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-24/03)
By its action, the applicant takes issue in particular with the
order for repayment of the investment subsidy of 2,5 million
                                                                                (2003/C 70/48)
DEM, the order for repayment of allegedly ‘de minimis’ aid
payments and that for repayment of grants made for the
implementation of job-creation measures under Para-                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
graph 249h of the Arbeitsförderungsgesetz (Law on the
Promotion of Employment) (‘AFG’). In its action it alleges
infringement of the EC Treaty, breach of fundamental prin-
ciples of Community law and manifest errors of fact and of               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
appraisal.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 30 January 2003 by Antonio Aresu rep-
                                                                         resented by Sergio Diana, acting as Agent, with an address for
The applicant contends that the order for repayment of                   service in Luxembourg.
the investment subsidy and of the grants paid out under
Paragraph 249h AFG is contrary to the EC Treaty. The
investment subsidy was granted from an approved programme                The applicant claims that the Court should:
and, with regard to measures under Paragraph 249h AFG, the
Commission expressly determined in 1994 that these did not               —     annul the following two decisions:
constitute aid. In both cases, therefore, the rules applicable to
existing aid applied. In its decision, however, the Commission                 (a)   the express decision of the appointing authority
went beyond an examination of whether the particular con-                            of 29 August 2002 recorded in the note from
ditions of the programmes had been complied with and                                 Mr T. Lennon D(2002)687 of 2 September 2002,
retroactively applied more stringent conditions to those pro-                        received on 4 September 2002, announcing the
grammes than were contained in the programmes or in the                              rejection of the applicant’s application for vacant
conditions of approval which the Commission had imposed.                             post COM/059/02 and the awarding of that post to
The Commission is thereby in breach of Articles 87 EC and 88                         Mr M. Scannell;
EC and in infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                               (b) the implied decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                17 January 2003 rejecting the complaint made by
The applicant argues further that the Commission has infringed                       the applicant on 17 September 2002 against that
the fundamental principle of the protection of legitimate                            decision.
expectations by failing to take account of the fact that the
publication by the Commission itself in the Official Journal of          —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
the EC of its formal approval of the programme for guarantee-
ing investment and the rules in Paragraph 249h AFG gives no
indication of the more stringent restrictions which it has
applied within the context of the contested decision. The                Pleas in law and main arguments
applicant was thus entitled to rely on the expectation that both
programmes would be applied in the form as published and
approved by the Commission. The demand for repayment,                    The applicant in this case contests the rejection of his
which runs counter to this expectation, is patently unlawful.            application for a post as head of unit in the Health and
                                                                         Consumer Protection Directorate-General.
The applicant submits further that the Commission’s findings
contain fundamental errors of fact and a number of manifest              In support of his claims the applicant submits that the
errors of appraisal. First, there is an error of appraisal in the        contested decisions stated no grounds, in breach of the second
                                                                         paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
classification of the applicant as an undertaking in difficulty.
The demand for repayment of the ‘de minimis’ aid payments
also contains manifest and significant errors as to the facts.


title: Case C-74/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 90 EC — Registration tax on imported second-hand cars — Determination of taxable value — Depreciation of vehicles based solely on age — Publicising of criteria of calculation — Possibility of challenging the application of the fixed method of calculation)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-74/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 90 EC - Registration tax on imported second-hand cars - Determination of taxable value - Depreciation of vehicles based solely on age - Publicising of criteria of calculation - Possibility of challenging the application of the fixed method of calculation)
   (2007/C 269/22)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 90 EC — Discriminatory taxation on imported second-hand cars
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by applying a single criterion of depreciation, based on the age of the vehicles, for the purpose of determining the taxable value of second-hand vehicles imported from another Member State into Greek territory in order to establish the registration tax, and by adopting a reduction in value of 7 % for vehicles between 6 and 12 months old or 14 % for vehicles more than a year old, which does not ensure that the tax due does not exceed, even if only in certain cases, the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value of similar second-hand vehicles already registered in the national territory, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90 EC;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3)

               Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-298/99: Action brought on 9 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 299/12               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
(Decision 1999/368 — alternatively Decisions 1999/389 and                          in architecture, including measures to facilitate the
1999/449)                                                                          effective exercise of the right of establishment and
                                                                                freedom to provide services, as amended;
— Breach of the general principle of care: Decision 1999/368                  (2) by adopting Article 4.2.(a) of legislative decree No 129
    was adopted with excessive haste, without any meeting of                       of 27 January 1992 and Article 4.1.(a) of decree
    the Standing Veterinary Committee taking place (even as a                      No 776 of the Ministry for Universities and Scientific
    matter of urgency) and without any actual consultation                         and Technological Research of 10 June 1994 which
    with the competent Belgian authorities. Consequently, the                      lay down a general requirement for the production of
    contested provisions manifestly disregard various scientific                   the original diploma or a certified true copy thereof;
    and factual data which substantially affect the actual health
    risk. The measures taken by the Commission must correctly
    reflect the real level of risk to public health. In that respect,              by adopting Article 4.2.(c) of decree No 129/92 and
    there are two important elements to be borne in mind,                          Article 4.1.(c) of decree No 776/94 which lay down a
    namely (i) the fact that scientific investigation has not                      general requirement for a certificate of nationality;
    conclusively shown that the short-term peak intake of
    dioxins causes significant damage to human health in the                       by adopting Article 4.3 of decree No 129/92 and
    long term, and (ii) the fact that the contamination by                         article 10 of decree No 746/94 which routinely require
    dioxins of compound feedingstuffs for bovine animals and                       an official translation of documents;
    pigs represents a relatively low risk in respect of products
    obtained from those animals, particularly long-fat prod-
    ucts. In particular, in recital (10) in the preamble to                        by adopting Article 11(1)(c) and (d) of decree No
    Decision 1999/449, the Commission overlooks the fact                           129/92, which extends the validity of certificates after
    that the tolerable daily intake recommended by the World                       5.8.1987;
    Health Organisation relates to a norm for a recurring
    intake over the long term which is, as such, of little
    relevance to incidental, short term exposure.                             (3) by prohibiting architects providing services in Italy
                                                                                from having an infrastructure in Italy (Article 9.1 of
— Breach of the general principle of proportionality: the                          decree No 129/92);
    objective pursued could have been attained by more
    specific and less burdensome measures. In any event,                      (4) by requiring an architect providing services to register
    having regard to the other significant concerns in the                         with the regional professional body for architects
    matters, the contested provisions are excessively stringent.                   (Article 9.3 of decree No 129/92 and Article 7 and 8
                                                                                of decree No 776/94), contrary to the provisions of
                                                                                Article 22 of the directive; and
                                                                              (5) by applying Article 4(6) to 4(8) of decree No 129/92
                                                                                in a manner contrary to Article 20(1) of the directive,
                                                                                has breached the requirements imposed on it by
Action brought on 9 August 1999 by the Commission of                               Articles 12, 20, 22, 27 and 31 of Directive
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                            85/384/EEC, and, in respect of point 3 above, by
                                                                                Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 49 EC);
                         (Case C-298/99)
                                                                          II. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (1999/C 299/12)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 August                  Pleas in law and main arguments
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Elisabetta
Montaguti, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of                  Breaches relating to failure to transpose or
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi,                  transpose fully the directive
Kirchberg.
                                                                          — Article 4(1) of the directive was transposed by Article 2.1
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              of legislative decree No 129/92 which regulates the
                                                                              minimum length of training. However, that decree does
I.  Declare that the Italian Republic                                         not take account of the three year training in the ‘Fach-
                                                                              hochschulen’ of the Federal Republic of Germany.
    (1) by failing to take all the measures necessary to
         implement Articles 4(1), second part, 4(2), 7, 11 and
         14 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC (1) of 10 June                — Article 4(2) of the directive concerning recognition of
         1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-                 training in architecture pursued as part of a social better-
         cates and other evidence of formal qualifications                    ment scheme or a part-time course was not transposed.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.10.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 299/13
— Article 14 of the directive, which lays down specific                 (England & Wales) of 5 May 1999, which was received at the
    provisions for qualifications awarded by the authorities            Court Registry on 9 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
    of the former German Democratic Republic, was not                   the case of Philips Electronics NV against Remington Con-
    transposed.                                                         sumer Products Ltd, on the following questions:
— Article 7 was only partly transposed and Article 11 was               1. Is there a category of marks which is not excluded from
    not fully transposed in that no account was taken of the                registration by Articles 3(1)(b)-(d) and Article 3(3) of the
    correction published in the Official Journal L 87 of 2 April            Council Directive 89/104/EEC(1) (‘the Directive’), which is
    1986.                                                                   nonetheless excluded from registration by Article 3(1 )(a)
                                                                            of the Directive (as being incapable of distinguishing the
                                                                            goods of the proprietor from those other undertakings)?
Breaches relating to the incorrect transpo-
sition of the directive
                                                                        2. Is the shape (or part of the shape) of an article (being the
                                                                            article in respect of which the sign is registered) only
(a) Establishment as an architect                                           capable of distinguishing for the purposes of Article 2 if it
                                                                            contains some capricious addition (being an embellishment
    Article 4.2(a) of decree No 129/92 lays down a general                  which has no functional purpose) to the shape of the
    requirement for the production of the original diploma or               article?
    a certified true copy of the diploma of the applicant
    architect. That requirement ought to be reserved for cases
    of doubt over the authenticity of qualifications and is             3. Where a trader has been the only supplier of particular
    contrary to Article 27 of the directive inasmuch as it lays             goods to the market, is extensive use of a sign, which
    down an additional general condition which is neither                   consists of the shape (or part of the shape) of those goods
    appropriate nor justified for the purposes of exercising the            and which does not include any capricious addition,
    right of establishment. The same conclusion is called for               sufficient to give the sign a distinctive character for the
    with regard to the routine requirement for an official                  purposes of Article 3(3) in circumstances where as a result
    translation of documents produced by an applicant archi-                of that use a substantial proportion of the relevant trace
    tect, laid down by Article 4.3 of the decree.                           and public
(b) The provision of services                                               (i) associate the shape with that trader and no other
                                                                                undertaking;
    Article 9.3 of decree No 129/92, which requires a provider
    of services to register with the regional and the national              (ii) believe that goods of that shape come from that trader
    professional body for architects, clearly exceeds the bounds                  absent a statement to the contrary?
    of the directive and constitutes a wholly unjustified
    obstacle to the provision of occasional service on Italian
    territory.                                                          4. (i) Can the restriction imposed by the words ‘if it consists
                                                                                exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to
    Article 9.1 of that decree prohibits an architect providing                   achieve a technical result’ appearing in Article 3(1)(e)(ii)
    services in Italy from setting up a permanent infrastructure                  be overcome by establishing that there are other shapes
    there. This sort of general and indiscriminate prohibition                    which can obtain the same technical result or
    is not justified by any of the provisions of the directive
    relating to freedom to provide services. Moreover, it is                (ii) is the shape unregistrable by virtue thereof if it is
    contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                           shown that the essential features of the shape are
    amendment, Article 49 EC).                                                    attributable only to the technical result or
                                                                            (iii) is some other and, if so, what test appropriate for
(1) OJ L 223 of 21.8.1985, p. 15.
                                                                                determining whether the restriction applies?
                                                                        5. Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive applies to ‘trade marks
                                                                            which consist exclusively of signs or indications which
                                                                            may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity,
                                                                            intended purpose ... of the goods or service’. Article
                                                                            6(1 )(b) of the Directive applies to the use by a third party
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                   of ‘indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity,
(England & Wales), by order of that court of 5 May 1999,                    intended purpose ... of goods or services’. The word
in the case of Philips Electronics NV against Remington                     ‘exclusively’ thus appears in Article 3(1)(c) and is omitted
                    Consumer Products Ltd                                   in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive? On a proper interpret-
                                                                            ation of the Directive, does this omission mean that, even
                                                                            if a mark consisting of the shape of goods is validly
                         (Case C-299/99)                                    registered, it is not infringed by virtue of Article 6(1)(b) in
                                                                            circumstances where
                         (1999/C 299/13)
                                                                            (i) the use of the shape of goods complained of is and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            would be taken as an indication as to the kind of goods
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                           or the intended purpose thereof and


title: Case C-275/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 2 June 2010 — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 2 June 2010 — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam
   (Case C-275/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/30
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Residex Capital IV CV

      Defendant: Gemeente Rotterdam

      Question referred

   Does the provision in the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, now Article 108(3) TFEU, mean that, in a case such as the present, where the unlawful aid measure was implemented by granting the lender a guarantee which enabled the borrower to obtain a loan from the lender which would not have been available to it under normal market conditions, the national courts, within the framework of their obligation to remedy the consequences of the unlawful aid measure, are obliged, or at any rate authorised to cancel the guarantee, even if that does not result in the cancellation of the loan granted under the guarantee?


title: Case C-386/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2007 — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2007 — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
   (Case C-386/07)
   (2007/C 283/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA

      Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
   Questions referred

               1.

               ‘Does the mandatory nature of the minimum fees and charges set in respect of services provided by lawyers constitute a measure which favours members of the profession concerned, contrary to Articles 81 EC and 10 EC (formerly Articles 85 and 5 of the EC Treaty)?

               2.

               Does the prohibition of the reduction by courts, when determining costs, of the minimum limits set in the individual items of the scale, by reason of the mandatory nature of the minimum fees and charges set in respect of services provided by lawyers, constitute a measure which favours members of the profession concerned, contrary to the rules in Articles 81 EC and 10 EC?

               3.

               Does the obligation to state reasons, which is in any event imposed, for the reduction of fees below the minimum limit, and which conflicts with the practice of the administrative courts of calculating the costs of a case on the basis of a variety of factors relating to the outcome of the proceedings and not on that of the actual economic value of the dispute, constitute a restriction on the practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, as guaranteed by recital (7) in the preamble to Directive 98/5/EC (1)?’

      (1)  OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.


title: Case C-424/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Christina Ioanni Toki v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias Thriskevmaton (Directive 89/48/EEC — Points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 — Recognition of higher education diplomas — Environmental engineer — Activity deemed to be a regulated professional activity — Applicable mechanism of recognition — Meaning of ‘professional experience’ )

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Christina Ioanni Toki v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias Thriskevmaton
   (Case C-424/09) (1)

   (Directive 89/48/EEC - Points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 - Recognition of higher education diplomas - Environmental engineer - Activity deemed to be a regulated professional activity - Applicable mechanism of recognition - Meaning of ‘professional experience’)
   2011/C 152/09
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Symvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christina Ioanni Toki

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias Thriskevmaton

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Interpretation of Article 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1) — Access to or pursuit of a regulated profession under the same conditions as nationals — Profession of environmental engineer — Meaning of ‘professional experience’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the mechanism of recognition which it provides for is applicable where, in the Member State of origin, the profession at issue falls under the second subparagraph of Article 1(d) of that directive, irrespective of whether the person concerned is or is not a full member of the association or organisation concerned.

               2.

               Before account can be taken, for the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3 of Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19, of professional experience relied on by a person seeking to obtain authorisation to pursue a regulated profession in the host Member State, the following three conditions must be satisfied:

                           —

                           the experience relied on must consist of full-time work for at least two years during the previous ten years;

                           —

                           that work must have consisted of the continuous and regular pursuit of a range of professional activities which characterise the profession concerned in the Member State of origin, but that work need not have encompassed all those activities, and

                           —

                           the profession, as it is normally pursued in the Member State of origin, must be equivalent, in respect of the activities which it covers, to the profession which the person has sought authorisation to pursue in the host Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-241/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium)) — Fluxys SA v Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Partial withdrawal by the applicant in the main proceedings — Changed legal framework — Court’s reply no longer necessary for the decision in the main proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium)) — Fluxys SA v Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)
   (Case C-241/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of the Court - Partial withdrawal by the applicant in the main proceedings - Changed legal framework - Court’s reply no longer necessary for the decision in the main proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 55/12
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fluxys SA

      Defendant: Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 18 of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57) and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 1) — Automatic revision of the rules for determining the total revenue of system operators in the event of the occurrence of exceptional circumstances during a regulatory period — Compatibility with Community law of a separate tariff regime for transit activities distinct from that applicable to ‘conveyance’ and storage

      Operative part of the judgment

   There is no need to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case C-241/09.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.08.2009.


title: Appeal brought on 12 December 1997 by Société anonyme des traverses en béton armé (SATEBA) against the order made on 29 September 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/97 between Société anonyme de traverses en béton armé (SATEBA) and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-422/97 P)

text:
20.2.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 55/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (a) In regard to the building and demolition waste
                                                                             from which the chips are produced, operations
                                                                             are carried out already at an earlier stage than
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    burning which are to be regarded as a discarding
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    of the waste, namely operations (recycling
    Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on                          operations) to render the waste suitable for reuse
    the minimum safety and health requirements for                           (use as a fuel)?
    improved medical treatment on board vessels (1), the
    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             If so, is an operation to render waste suitable for
    obligations under that Directive,
                                                                             reuse (recycling operation) to be regarded as an
                                                                             operation for recovery of waste only if that
                                                                             operation is expressly mentioned in Annex II B of
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                             Directive 75/442/EEC, or also if that operation is
                                                                             analogous to an operation mentioned in
                                                                             Annex II B?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (b) Wood chips constitute waste under contemporary
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                       thinking whereby it is of particular relevance
those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2); the time-limit for                   whether they may be recovered in an
transposition expired on 31 December 1994.                                   environmentally responsible manner for use as
                                                                             fuel without further processing?
(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19.
(2) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998, p. 11.                                           (c)  The use of wood chips as a fuel is comparable
                                                                             with an accepted method of waste recovery?
                                                                   (1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands
Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November
1997 in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees,
Stichting    Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk                 Appeal brought on 12 December 1997 by SocieÂteÂ
Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and           anonyme des traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) against
           Water Services Department, Gelderland                   the order made on 29 September 1997 by the First
                       (Case C-419/97)                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities in Case T-83/97 between SocieÂteÂ anonyme
                          (98/C 55/32)                             de traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-422/97 P)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad                                        (98/C 55/33)
van State (Council of State) of 25 November 1997,
received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang         An appeal against the order made on 29 September 1997
Hees, Stichting Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk              by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and           European Communities in Case T-83/97 between SocieÂteÂ
Water Services Department, Gelderland, on the following            anonyme de traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) and the
questions:                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   on 12 December 1997 by SocieÂteÂ anonyme de traverses en
1. May it be inferred from the mere fact that wood chips           beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA), represented by Jacques Manseau,
    undergo an operation listed in Annex II B to Directive         of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    75/442/EEC (1) that that substance has been discarded          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue
    so as to enable it to be regarded as waste for the             Mathias Hardt.
    purposes of Directive 75/442/EEC?
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does           order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 1997
    the reply to the question whether the use of wood              in Case T-83/97 (1) on the grounds of (i) erroneous
    chips as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting              interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty and, in
    discarding depend on whether:                                  particular, Articles 155, 169 and 86 thereof and of
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/18                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.2.98
Regulation No 17 which was adopted to implement                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
Article 86; (ii) infringement of Article 173; and (iii) breach      by order of that court of 2 October 1997 in the case of
of essential procedural requirements.                               Sarclad International Ltd, Wittington, Chesterfield, United
                                                                           Kingdom, against the Bundesamt für Finanzen
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                        (Case C-428/97)
                                                                                (98/C 55/34)
Ð Error in classification
    Ð Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 17.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
    Ð Erroneous interpretation of Article 169 of the EC             (Federal Finance Court) of 2 October 1997, received at
        Treaty: in order for Article 169 concerning failure         the Court Registry on 18 December 1997, for a
        of a Member State to fulfil obligations to apply, it        preliminary ruling in the case of Sarclad International Ltd,
        is not sufficient that a failure to comply with            Wittington, Chesterfield, United Kingdom, against the
        Directive 93/38' is concerned and was expressly             Bundesamt für Finanzen (Federal Finance Office) on the
        referred to in the complaint, since the complaint           following question:
        was directed only at the conduct of the contracting
        entity, both as regards competition and free
        movement of goods.
                                                                    Is Article 3(a) of the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/
                                                                    EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the
        Nor does the Court of First Instance establish that
                                                                    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to
        the procedure followed by the Commission was
                                                                    be interpreted as meaning:
        appropriate by citing the case-law of the Court of
        Justice according to which acts of contracting
        entities are imputable to the Member States to
        which those entities belong. If that case-law is            Ð that the duplicate of a substitute document may also
        applied to the present case, the SNCB has no                    be regarded as the original import document or the
        liability, contrary to the principle set out in                 Member States are allowed in some circumstances to
        Article 222 of the Treaty, even though the same                 treat the duplicate as the original import document, or
        misconduct could be raised against a private
        undertaking.
                                                                    Ð that taxable persons not established in the territory of
    Ð Misinterpretation of the concept of an act against                the country Ð who are covered by the eighth
        which proceedings may be brought.                               Directive 79/1072/EEC Ð are definitively precluded
                                                                        from asserting their right to deduct input tax if the
Ð Breach of essential procedural requirements                           import document originally issued has been lost before
                                                                        the application for a refund of the value added tax is
                                                                        made?
    Ð Manifest violation of the rights as of defence: the
        Court of First Instance acted in breach of this
        fundamental principle by adopting the premise               (1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979, p. 11.
        that, in the context of a procedure pursuant to
        Article 169 of the Treaty, persons who have lodged
        a complaint have no procedural rights.
    Ð Distortion of the subject-matter of the dispute:
        with regard to the plea of inadmissibility raised by
        the Commission, the Court of First Instance failed
        to find in limine litis that there was no legal basis       Action brought on 18 December 1997 by the Commission
        for the Commission's letter closing the file, as            of the European Communities against the French Republic
        SATEBA, in its application, requested it to do. The                                (Case C-429/97)
        Court of First Instance could not, therefore,
        without exceeding its powers, act in the place of                                    (98/C 55/35)
        the Commission in selecting one of the procedures
        made available to the Commission in the context
        of Article 155 of the Treaty, in order to establish a
        ground for declaring the applicant's action                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
        inadmissible.                                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    18 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by HeÂleÁne Michard and Enrico
(1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997, p. 27.
                                                                    Traversa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-329/10: Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Fraas v OHIM (Black, grey, beige and dark red coloured checked pattern)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/45

      Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Fraas v OHIM (Black, grey, beige and dark red coloured checked pattern)
      (Case T-329/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/86)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

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

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

         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 7 June 2010 in Case R 191/2010-4;

                  —

                  Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a black, grey, beige and dark red coloured checked pattern, for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25.

         Decision of the Examiner: Registration was refused.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since the Community trade mark concerned does have distinctive character, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal did not address the applicant's extensive factual and legal submissions.

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


20.11.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 333/21
Communities in case T-14/98 between Heidi Hautala, Member                     Removal from the register of Case C-316/98 P (1)
of the European Parliament, supported by the Republic of
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the                                        (1999/C 333/46)
European Union, supported by the French Republic, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            By order of 2 February 1999 the President of the Court of
ties on 22 September 1999 by the Council of the European                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Union, represented by Mrs Jill Aussant, Director, Mr Giorgio            from the register of Case C-316/98 P: Union Européenne de
Maganza, Director, and Mr Martin Bauer, Legal Adviser, acting           l’Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) v
as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             Council of the European Communities.
office of Mr Alessandro Morbilli, Director of the Legal Affairs
Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard
Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg.                                             (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
      19 July 1999 by which it:
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-335/98 (1)
      — annuls the Council’s decision of 4 November 1997
          refusing the Respondent access to the report of the                                    (1999/C 333/47)
          Working group on Conventional Arms Exports;
                                                                        By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
      — orders the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings;         the register of Case-335/98: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Italian Republic.
— decide to give final judgment in the matter, dismiss the
      Application at First Instance as unfounded and order the          (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
      Applicant at First Instance to pay the costs of the
      proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
— decide on the costs of this appeal as it sees fit.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-388/98 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (1999/C 333/48)
The Council’s appeal is based on the ground that the Court of
First Instance committed a fundamental error of law in                  By order of 11 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
interpreting Article 4(1) of the decision (2) on public access to       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Council documents as legally requiring the Council to consider          the register of Case C-388/98: Commission of the European
whether access should be given to parts of a document to                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
which access is requested.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
According to the Council, the Court of First Instance:
i)    incorrectly construed the legal effect of the decision on
      public access to Council documents;
ii) misconstrued the objective of the decision on public access                Removal from the register of Case C-338/96 (1)
      to Council documents;
                                                                                (1999/C 333/49)
iii) misapplied the principle of proportionality.
                                                                        By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case C-338/96 (reference for a preliminary
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998, p. 27.                                           ruling from Genova): Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Amministra-
(2) Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20.12.1993 (OJ L 340,                 zione delle Finanze dello Stato.
     31.12.1993, p. 43).
                                                                        (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.


title: Case C-126/09: Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/44

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-126/09) (1)

   2010/C 63/74

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2002 in Case T-388/00: Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier figurative mark containing the acronym ILS — Application for Community word mark ELS — Proof of use of earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 19/30                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
Case T-178/00, J. Fernández Martín, V. Saintot and B. Wägen-                 Economic Area Agreement (Case COMP/JV 40 Canal+/Lagard-
baur, and, in Case T-341/00, V. Saintot, T. Gulliams and                     ère and COMP/JV 47 Canal+/Lagardère/Liberty Media), the
Wägenbaur): Application for annulment of the applicant’s                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-
performance appraisal report for 1999, in Case T-178/00, and                 sition), composed of M. Jaeger, President, R. García-Valdecasas,
for annulment of the note of 28 June 2000 from the Director-                 K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio González,
General of the Directorate-General for Information Systems                   Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 Nov-
(DG IS) of the European Central Bank concerning the duties                   ember 2002, in which it:
allocated to the applicant, in Case T-341/00, the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President,
R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; D. Christensen,                   1.     annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 July 2000 amending
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                           the decision of the Commission of 22 June 2000 declaring a
22 October 2002, in which it:                                                       concentration compatible with the common market and with
                                                                                the European Economic Area Agreement (Case COMP/JV
                                                                                40 Canal+/Lagardère and COMP/JV 47 Canal+/Lagardère/
1.     Orders that Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00 shall be joined                      Liberty Media);
       for the purposes of the judgment;
2.     Dismisses the applications in Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00;            2.     orders the defendant to pay the costs.
3.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 20 November 2002                                                            of 23 October 2002
in Case T-251/00: Lagardère SCA and Canal+ SA v                              in Case T-388/00: Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH v Office
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                          for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Modifi-
cation of a decision declaring a concentration compatible
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
with the common market — Restrictions directly related
                                                                             figurative mark containing the acronym ILS — Application
and necessary to the implementation of the concentration
                                                                             for Community word mark ELS — Proof of use of earlier
(‘Ancillary restrictions’) — Action for annulment — Chal-
                                                                             mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
lengeable acts — Legal interest in bringing proceedings —
                                                                             and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Relative
    Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Reasons)
                                                                             ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 — Statement of reasons)
                            (2003/C 19/55)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/56)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-251/00: Lagardère SCA, established in Paris, rep-
resented by A. Winckler, avocat, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, Canal+ SA, established in Paris, represented
by J.-P. de La Laurencie and P.-M. Louis, avocats, against                   In Case T-388/00, Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH, established
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils                      in Hamburg (Germany), represented by J. Schneider and
and F. Lelièvre) — application for annulment of the Com-                     A. Buddee, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
mission’s decision of 10 July 2000 amending the decision of                  v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
the Commission of 22 June 2000 declaring a concentration                     and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, A. di Carlo
compatible with the common market and with the European                      and O. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings before
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/31
the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being ELS                     and Designs) of 31 October 2000 (Joined Cases R 728/1999-
Educational Services, Inc., established in Culver City, California          2 and R 792/1999-2), relating to opposition proceedings
(United States): Action brought against the decision of the                 between Hukla Germany SA and Matratzen Concord GmbH,
Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the                the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October                     of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
2000 (Case R 074/2000-3), the Court of First Instance (Fourth               D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and                  judgment on 23 October 2002, in which it:
P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
it:                                                                         1.     Dismisses the application;
1.     Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2000 (Case R 074/2000-
       3) in so far as it relates to the analysis of the likelihood of
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
       confusion between the conflicting marks;
2.     For the rest, dismisses the application;
3.     Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and pay two thirds
       of the costs incurred by the applicant. The applicant shall bear
       one third of its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 November 2002
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01: Robert Bosch GmbH
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                         of 23 October 2002
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Kit Pro and Kit Super Pro —
in Case T-6/01: Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for                         Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                                  (EC) No 40/94)
                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/58)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Relative grounds
for refusal — Similarity between two trade marks —
Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation                                        (Language of the case: German)
(EC) No 40/94 — Application for a figurative Community
trade mark containing the word ‘Matratzen’ — Earlier word
                     trade mark MATRATZEN)
                            (2003/C 19/57)                                  In Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01, Robert Bosch GmbH,
                                                                            established in Stuttgart (Germany), represented by S. Völker,
                                                                            lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
                     (Language of the case: German)                         mission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Schneider):
                                                                            Actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of
                                                                            Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                            (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 (Cases R 124/
In Case T-6/01, Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen                  2000-1 and R 123/2000-1) on the registration of Kit Pro and
Concord AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented                   Kit Super Pro respectively as Community trade marks, the
by W.-W. Wodrich, avocat, v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:                   M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Chris-
A. von Mühlendahl, G. Schneider and E. Joly): Action brought                tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                   on 20 November 2002, in which it:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Netherlands Raad van State, by judgment of that court of 22 February 1996 in the case of H. Meints v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Case C-57/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133 / 13
federation in order to be able to compete in an international           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Raad van
competition, and which lay down national entry quotas or                State, by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996 in the
similar competitions, are contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in            case of VT4 Limited v. Vlaamse Gemeenschap, represented
particular Articles 59 to 66 and Articles 85 and 86 .                   by the Flemish Government, Intercommunale Maatschappij
                                                                        voor Gas en Eletriciteit van het Westen and Others
                                                                                intervening
                                                                                Case C-56/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/27 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Appello, Milan, First Civil Division, by order of 30 January            European Communities by judgment of the Belgian Raad
1996 in the non-contentious proceedings brought before it               van State ( State Council ) of 14 February 1996 , which was
                      by Job Centre Coop. arl.                          received at the Court Registry on 26 February 1996 , for a
                           ( Case C-55/96 )                             preliminary ruling in the case of VT4 Limited v . Vlaamse
                             ( 96/C 133/26 )                            Gemeenschap, represented by the Flemish Government,
                                                                        Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en Elektriciteit van
                                                                        het Westen and Others intervening on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question:
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello,
Milan, First Civil Division, of 30 January 1996, which was              at the time of the contested decision, may regard be had, for
received at the Court Registry on 23 February 1996 , for a              the purposes of interpreting Article 2 of Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the non-contentious proceedings                   89/552/EEC of 3 October 1 989 ( 1 ) with regard to its scope
brought before that court by Job Centre Coop , arl on the               ratione personae, to abovementioned draft and proposal of
following questions :                                                   31 May 1995 ( 2 ) of the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities and to the abovementioned text provisionally
 1 . May the provisions of Italian national law contained in            adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European
      Article 11(1 ) of Law No 264 of 29 April 1949 and                 Communities on 20 November 1995 ? If so, what meaning
      Article 1(1 ) of Law No 1369 of 23 October 1960 ,                 overlapping the three different texts must be inferred for the
      whereby the business of acting as an intermediary and             purposes of that interpretation ?
      negotiator between those seeking and those offering
      employment is prohibited unless carried on by the public          (M OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p . 23 .
      offices specified in those provisions, be regarded as             ( 2 ) OJ No C 185 , 1995 , p . 4 .
      relating to the exercise of official authority within the
      meaning of the combined provisions of Articles 66 and
      55 of the EC Treaty in view of the fact that they are
      treated by Italian law as relating to matters of public
      policy because their purpose is to protect the interests of
      workers and the national economy ?                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Netherlands Raad
                                                                        van State, by judgment of that court of 22 February 1996
2 . Must those provisions, in view of their general scope,              in the case of H. Meints v. Minister van Landbouw,
       be regarded as conflicting with the principles of                                     Natuurbeheer en Visserij
       Community law laid down by Articles 8 , 49, 55 , 59, 60,                                     Case C-57/96
       62 , 66 , 86 and 90 of the said Treaty concerning the right                                   96/C 133 /28
      to work, freedom of economic initiative, freedom of
      movement for workers and others, freedom of supply
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       and demand for work and services, free and fair
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Netherlands
      competition between economic agents and the abuse of               Raad van State ( State Council ) of 22 February 1 996 , which
       dominant positions ?
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 26 February 1996 , for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Meints v. Minister
 3 . In the event that the abovementioned legislation of the
                                                                         van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( Minister for
       Italian State concerning employment agency business is
                                                                         Agriculture, Nature Conservancy and Fisheries ) on the
       in breach of the principles of Community law mentioned
                                                                         following questions :
       in the foregoing question, must the judicial and
       administrative     authorities   of that    Member    State
                                                                         1 , does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 apply to a benefit
       consider themselves bound to apply those principles                     such as that provided for in the Vergoedingsregeling
       directly, allowing public and private bodies and                       voor Uitreding van Werknemers in de Landbouw
       undertakings to act as intermediaries between those                     ( Compensation Rules for Workers Leaving Farming )
       offering and those seeking employment and temporary                     which does not depend on the duration of
       work, subject to compliance with the provisions                         unemployment and forms part of a scheme of measures
       governing employment contracts and mandatory social                     for the structural improvement of the agricultural sector
       security and subject to the controls provided for by                    which emphasizes the promotion of the complete or
       law ?
                                                                               partial cessation of farming and the abandonment of
                                                                               farming by farmers ? What other circumstances may also
                                                                               be relevant ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 133/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
2 , if Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a benefit                3 , the standard cable television agreement of 29 May
      granted under the Vergoedingsregeling ( 1 ) to be regarded                1985 and/or agreements deriving therefrom are
      as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7 ( 2 )              incompatible with Article 7 of the EC Treaty;
      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ? If so, is the
      imposition of the requirement that the worker                        4 , the participation of BUMA in the cable radio
      concerned should have his residence in the Netherlands                   agreements, in the form adopted , are incompatible
      to be regarded as different treatment by reason of                       with Article 86 of the EC Treaty;
      nationality contrary to Article 7 of that Regulation ?
                                                                           5 , the role played by the Netherlands State in the
0 ) Administrative Décision No 403 of the Stichting                            establishment of the standard cable agreements
    Ontwikkelings- en Saneringsfonds voor de Landbouw                          and their practical implementation by means of
    ( Staatscourant 1988 , 114 ).                                              increases in invoices issued by public utility
                                                                               companies are incompatible with its obligations
                                                                               under Article 90;
                                                                           6 , Articles 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 of BUMA's standard
                                                                               exploitation agreements are in breach of the
                                                                               Commission's decision of 2 June 1971 in GEMA I
                                                                               ( OJ No L 134 , 1971 , p . 15 ) and are incompatible
Appeal brought on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman against                           with Article 86 of the EC Treaty, since they
the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996 by the Court of                       constitute an abuse of BUMA's dominant position
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                             in relation to copyright owners and are a restriction
T-575 /93 between C. Koelman and Commission of the                             of competition .
                     European Communities
                        ( Case C-59/96 P)
                                                                      B. annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                           ( 96/C 133/29 )                                 9 January 1996 in Case T-575/93 , and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996                 1 , declare void on the ground of Articles 173 and 174
                                                                               the   Commission        decision not the   initiate    a
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-575/93 between C. Koelman and Commission of                          proceeding on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
the European Communities, supported by BUMA, was                               No 17 after submission of a complaint by Koelman
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            on 26 October 1990 regarding the two 'cable
Communities on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman, represented                         agreements' of 29 May 1985 and the infringements
                                                                               referred to therein;
by R. V. H. Jonker, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Pels, 12 Rue Léon
Thyes .                                                                    2 , order the Commission to pay compensation for the
                                                                               damage suffered by Koelman;
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               3 , order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings .
A.    rule that :
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      1 , authors should be guaranteed a free choice
          regarding the organization which they wish to               The appellant's grounds of appeal are that the Court of First
          appoint as intermediary in connection with their            Instance wrongly appraised his pleas based on Article 85 ( 3 )
          rights, and undertakings which act as intermediaries        of the EC Treaty and his plea that there had been a
          for rights should be guaranteed fair access to the          manifestly erroneous appraisal and breach of the obligation
          market and should be protected against abuse                to state the reasons upon which the decision was based.
          of dominant positions by musical copyright
          monopolies and similar organizations which, selling
          ' blanket  licences '   on  the  basis   of  dominant
          positions, in conjunction with indemnification
          clauses, infringe the Auteursrecht ( Law on
          copyright) in order thereby to dominate the market
          for intermediaries and exclude competition, which           Action brought on 5 March 1996 by the Commission of the
          results in an unnecessary restriction of the                   European Communities against the French Republic
          free-market economy;                                                                ( Case C-60/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/30 )
      2 , the two cable radio and television agreements of
          29 May 1985 and all the agreements deriving
          therefrom are incompatible with Article 85 ( 1 ) of         An action against the French Republic was brought before
          the EC Treaty and therefore void;                           the Court of Justice on 5 March 1 996 by the Commission


title: Case F-79/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 May 2008 — Braun-Neumann v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Pensions — Survivor's pension — Payment of 50 % owing to the existence of another surviving spouse — Inadmissibility — Complaint out of time — Absolute bar to proceeding — Raised by the Civil Service Tribunal of its own motion — Application ratione temporis of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 May 2008 — Braun-Neumann v Parliament
   (Case F-79/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Pensions - Survivor's pension - Payment of 50 % owing to the existence of another surviving spouse - Inadmissibility - Complaint out of time - Absolute bar to proceeding - Raised by the Civil Service Tribunal of its own motion - Application ratione temporis of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)
   (2008/C 183/60)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun-Neumann (Merzig, Germany) (represented by: P. Ames, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. F. De Wachter, K. Zejdová)
   Re:
   Claim for full payment of the survivor's pension.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 31.


title: Case T-280/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/64

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland and Others v Commission
   (Case T-280/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/78)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Germany); Ineos Phenol GmbH (Gladbeck, Germany); and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH (Wilhelmshaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, L. Petersen, F.-A. Wesche, N. Wimmer and T. Woltering, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-158/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — JingAo Solar e.a. v Council

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/34

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — JingAo Solar e.a. v Council
   (Case T-158/14)
   2014/C 159/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: JingAo Solar Co. Ltd (Ningjin, Chine); Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Shanghai, Chine); Yangzhou JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Yangzhou, Chine); Hefei JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Hefei, Chine); Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd (Shanghai); et JA Solar GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), as far as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 10(12) and 10(13) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-subsidy investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)


title: Case C-493/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 26(3) — Electronic communications — Networks and services — Single European emergency call number — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-493/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 26(3) - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Single European emergency call number - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2008/C 236/06)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and J. Javorský, Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure that that undertakings which operate public telephone networks make, in so far as it is technically feasible, caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies for calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

               2.

               Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.