title: Action brought on 7 March 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-62/96)

text:
No C 158/2          | EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1 . 6 . 96
     1 7 December 1 974 concerning the right ofnationals ofa            The legislation concerns fishing boats but can equally be
     Member State to remain in the territory of another                 applied to commercial and pleasure boats which are used as
     Member State after having pursued therein an activity in           a means of pursuing an economic activity .
     a self-employed capacity.
                                                                       With regard to boats which are not used as a means of
                                                                       pursuing an economic activity but for recreational purposes,
2 . Declares that, by not taking the appropriate measures to
                                                                       the Commission considers that the requirements for their
     comply with the judgment of 4 April 1974 in Case
                                                                       registration under Greek legislation are contrary to
     167/73 Commission v. France [1974] ECR 359, the
                                                                       Articles 6 , 48 and 52 of the Treaty and to Article 7 of
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1251 /70 and Article 7 of Council
     Article 171 of the EC Treaty.                                     Directive 75/34/EEC, inasmuch as workers within the
                                                                       meaning of Article 48 , or professional people within the
3 . Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                       meaning of Article 52, should receive the same treatment as
                                                                       nationals, both as regards the exercise of their activity and as
                                                                       regards the conditions of their residence in the State in
(') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                     question .
                                                                       The Commission considers that the right to register a vessel
                                                                       in the national registers of shipping and to fly the flag of the
                                                                       State in question may contribute to the absorption of a
                                                                       person into the host country and, consequently, to the
                                                                       realization of the aim of freedom of movement for persons
                                                                       within the meaning of Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty .
Action brought on 7 March 1996 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        ( Case C-62/96 )                               C ) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 ( II ), p . 402 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 14, 20 . 1 . 1975 , p . 10 .
                          ( 96/C 158/02 )
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 7 March 1996 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Frank Benuon,
Legal Adviser to the Commission's Legal Service and Maria
Condou-Durande of its Legal Service, with an address for              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo Gomez de la              Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto — Second Chamber
Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner                  — by order of that court of 14 December 1995 in the case of
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    David Petrie, Robert Hill and David John Newbold v.
                                                                      Université degli Studi di Verona, and in the presence of
                                                                                Camilla Bettoni
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( Case C-90/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158 /03 )
— declare that, by maintaining in force legal provisions
    which restrict the right to registration in the Greek
    registers of shipping to vessels owned as to a percentage         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    over 50 % by Greek nationals or by Greek legal persons            European Communities by an order of the Tribunale
    whose capital is owned as to the same percentage by               Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto ( Regional
    Greek nationals, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil       Administrative Court for the Veneto ) — Second Chamber
    its obligations under Articles 6 , 48 , 52, 58 and 221 of the     — of 14 December 1995 , which was received at the Court
    EEC Treaty, Article 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC )            Registry on 21 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
    No 1251 /70 of 29 June 1970 ( J ) and Article 7 of Council        case of David Petrie, Robert Hill and David John Newbold
    Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974 ( 2 );                    against Université degli Studi di Verona (Verona
                                                                      University ), in the presence of Camilla Bettoni, on :
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      whether Articles 5 and 48 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 1
                                                                      and 3 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( 1 ) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        15 October 1968 have to be interpreted as precluding a
                                                                      Member Srate's legislation from restricting the possibility of
The requirements laid down by Greek legislation for the               obtaining course-teaching appointments and temporary
registration of vessels in the Greek registers of shipping are        university teaching posts to specific categories, such as those
similar to those examined by the Court of Justice in Cases            provided for under Italian legislation, within a framework
C-221/89 Factortame [ 1991 ] ECR 3905 and C-246/89                    of legislation and administrative practice of the kind that
Commission v. United Kingdom [ 1991 ] ECR 1-4585 . The                exists in Italy, rather than providing that foreign-language
Court held that requirements of that kind are contrary to             university assistants with an employment relationship for an
Articles 6 , 52, 58 and 221 of the Treaty.                            indeterminate period with an Italian university are also


title: Case C-250/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung
   (Case C-250/05)
   (2005/C 217/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzgericht of 14 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung — on the following question:
   In the judgment of 7 February 2002 in Case C-276/00 (1) it was held that Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 (3) of 9 September 1996, had to be interpreted as meaning that an ink-cartridge without integrated print head, consisting of plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and packing material, which, as regards both the cartridge and the ink, could only be used in a printer with the same characteristics as Epson Stylus Colour ink-jet printers, was to be classified under subheading 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.
   Contrary to that ruling, should not the ink-cartridge described above in fact be classified as a part or accessory of a printer under CN heading 8473 because the mechanical and electronic functioning of the printer is dependent upon the presence of a cartridge of that kind?

      (1)  [2002] ECR I-1389.

      (2)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 March 2005 in Case C-553/03 P: Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters v Commission of the European Communities and Hellenic Republic (Appeal — State aid — Action for annulment — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/19

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 15 March 2005
   in Case C-553/03 P: Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters v Commission of the European Communities and Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Action for annulment - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure)
   (2005/C 182/36)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-553/03 P: Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters (lawyers: K. Adamantopoulos and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert), with an address for service in Luxembourg, the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: N. Khan) and Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalkias) — appeal pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 30 December 2003 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and E. Juhász, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 15 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities in these proceedings.

               3.

               The Hellenic Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.


title: Case C-210/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Republic of Hungary)) — In the proceedings in the case of Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató Bt (Transfer of a company seat to a Member State other than the Member State of incorporation — Application for amendment of the entry regarding the company seat in the commercial register — Refusal — Appeal against a decision of a court entrusted with keeping the commercial register — Article 234 EC — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Definition of court or tribunal — Definition of a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law — Appeal against a decision making a reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of appellate courts to order revocation of such a decision — Freedom of establishment — Articles 43 EC and 48 EC)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Republic of Hungary)) — In the proceedings in the case of Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató Bt
   (Case C-210/06) (1)

   (Transfer of a company seat to a Member State other than the Member State of incorporation - Application for amendment of the entry regarding the company seat in the commercial register - Refusal - Appeal against a decision of a court entrusted with keeping the commercial register - Article 234 EC - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Definition of ‘court or tribunal’ - Definition of ‘a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law’ - Appeal against a decision making a reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of appellate courts to order revocation of such a decision - Freedom of establishment - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC)
   (2009/C 44/04)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Szegedi Ítélőtábla
   Party to the main proceedings
   Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató Bt
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Articles 43, 48 and 234 EC — No possibility to transfer the seat of a company constituted under the law of a Member State to another Member State without first going into liquidation in the Member State of origin.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A court such as the referring court, hearing an appeal against a decision of a lower court, responsible for maintaining the commercial register, rejecting an application for amendment of information entered in that register, must be classified as a court or tribunal which is entitled to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, regardless of the fact that neither the decision of the lower court nor the consideration of the appeal by the referring court takes place in the context of inter partes proceedings.

               2.

               A court such as the referring court, whose decisions in disputes such as that in the main proceedings may be appealed on points of law, cannot be classified as a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 234 EC.

               3.

               Where rules of national law apply which relate to the right of appeal against a decision making a reference for a preliminary ruling, and under those rules the main proceedings remain pending before the referring court in their entirety, the order for reference alone being the subject of a limited appeal, the second paragraph of Article 234 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction conferred on any national court or tribunal by that provision of the Treaty to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling cannot be called into question by the application of those rules, where they permit the appellate court to vary the order for reference, to set aside the reference and to order the referring court to resume the domestic law proceedings.

               4.

               As Community law now stands, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which a company incorporated under the law of that Member State may not transfer its seat to another Member State whilst retaining its status as a company governed by the law of the Member State of incorporation.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-491/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2013 — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/47

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2013 — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-491/13)
   2013/C 344/82
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Question referred

   Does Council Directive 2004/114/EC (1) of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service establish a non-discretionary right to a visa for the purposes of studies and the subsequent residence permit under Article 12 of the so called ‘Student Directive’, if the ‘conditions of admission’, namely those listed in Articles 6 and 7 of the directive, are met and there are no grounds for refusing the visa under Article 6(1)(d) of the directive?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12.


title: Case C-320/07 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by Antartica Srl against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2007 in Case T-47/06: Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/27

         Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by Antartica Srl against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2007 in Case T-47/06: Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)
   (Case C-320/07 P)
   (2007/C 211/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Antartica Srl (represented by: E. Racca, avvocati and A. Fusillo, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision by the Second Board of Appeal

               —

               order the defendant to pay costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance's interpretation of Article 8 (5) of Regulation 40/94 (1) is inconsistent with the current definition of trademark notoriety subsequent to case C-372/97 General Motors.

      (1)  OJ L 11, p. 1.


title: Case C-309/13 P: Appeal brought on 5 June 2013 by Società Italiana Calzature SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2013 in Case T-337/11 Società Italiana Calzature SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/3

         Appeal brought on 5 June 2013 by Società Italiana Calzature SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2013 in Case T-337/11 Società Italiana Calzature SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-309/13 P)
   2013/C 233/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), VICINI SpA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside judgment No 564400 delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Cases T-337/11 on 9 April 2013 and notified on that date and grant the claims made by Società Italiana Calzature SpA (‘SIC’) in the proceedings at first instance by annulling the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 in Case R 0918/2010-2 and declare that VICINI’s Community trade mark No 4337.754 is to be refused registration on the ground of lack of novelty, as it is similar to such a degree that it may be confused with the earlier word sign ‘ZANOTTI’, which was registered in the European Union under No 244 277 and is owned by SIC;

               —

               order OHIM to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings;

               —

               order VICINI SpA to reimburse SIC in respect of all the costs relating to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision of the General Court is vitiated by inadequate and contradictory reasoning. The fact that the graphic element is visually dominant when compared with the word element of the mark applied for and that the words ‘By’ and ‘Giuseppe’ have been added to the term ‘ZANOTTI’ are not sufficient to rule out the possibility of a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, in view of the intrinsic qualities of the elements in question, in particular their lack of distinctive character.
   The General Court also erred in finding that the word ‘ZANOTTI’, which is the word element of the mark applied for, does not have an independent distinctive role, thus also ruling out in this respect a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case T-61/17: Action brought on 22 January 2017 — Selimovic v Parliament

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/35

         Action brought on 22 January 2017 — Selimovic v Parliament
   (Case T-61/17)
   (2017/C 121/52)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jasenko Selimovic (Hägersten, Sweden) (represented by: B. Leidhammar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the President’s decisions of 22 November 2016, D 203109 and D 203110 (‘the President’s decisions’);

               —

               Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 22 December 2016, PE 595.204/BUR/DEC (‘the Bureau’s decision’);

               —

               Rule urgently in the case;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the applicant compensation in a sum to be specified at a later date.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: the applicant alleges that he did not commit the offences of which he has been accused, namely psychological harassment under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Second plea in law: the applicant alleges that the decisions were adopted in a procedure which runs counter to the general principles of legal certainty and the right to a fair hearing as expressed in Article 6 of the ECHR, due, inter alia, to the following: the assessment, evaluation of the evidence and decision were all made by the same party (that is to say, in the context of an inquisitorial system). The decisions were made without being based on a specified description of the offences. The applicant submits that he has been deprived of the possibility of knowing the precise accusations against him and was not given an opportunity to counter the substantive accusations. The applicant has not been allowed, either in person or through a representative, to put questions to those who have accused him or to the secret witnesses who came forward. He has not had sufficient time for preparation. The European Parliament has not taken a position on the applicant’s arguments and evidence and has failed to demonstrate any infringement of the Staff Regulations.

               3.

               Third plea in law: the applicant alleges that the Bureau’s decision to reject the applicant’s request to examine the substance of the President’s decisions has been made without any basis in law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: the applicant alleges that secret proceedings under an inquisitorial procedure in which it is not possible for a parliamentarian to learn of or at least to counter sweeping allegations of harassment is a threat to democracy. That is particularly so in the light of the harm an adverse decision causes to the ability to bring representative political influence to bear.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: the applicant claims that the question should be decided as a matter of urgency since the applicant has specific and practical difficulties in carrying out his political work and building support in Sweden in the fields in which he is called upon to act in Parliament. A timely remedy would radically alter the situation and give the applicant the time and opportunity to carry out his political work and commence constituency work before the next mandate.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: the applicant alleges that the European Parliament has acted deliberately or in any event negligently by failing to halt the proceedings when the advisory committee could not discern a single charge that was sufficiently specific (where, when, how) to serve as the basis for acceptance/repudiation or the possibility of showing proof or rebuttal and furthermore it adopted an adverse decision in full awareness of the clear legal uncertainties underlying it. That has harmed the applicant. The harm consists in costs, suffering and the difficulty in which he has been placed in his future political work as a result of the decision. The applicant will specify a reasonable amount at a later date.


title: Case C-565/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law — National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax — Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax — Non-compliance with European Union law — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-565/11) (1)

   (Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law - National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax - Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax - Non-compliance with European Union law - Principle of effectiveness)
   2013/C 164/08
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mariana Irimie

      Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Sibiu — Interpretation of the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality, and of Article 6 TEU and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to restrict the amount which may be obtained by way of compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of the breach of European Union law by a Member State — Reimbursement of statutory interest relating to a tax refund

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union law must be interpreted as precluding a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the interest granted on repayment of a tax which was levied in breach of European Union law to that accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of that tax.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-50/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Gyproc Benelux N.V. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/44               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          26.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Benelux N.V., whose registered office is at Wijnegem (Belgium),
                                                                           represented by Jean-François Bellis, Peter L’Ecluse and Martin
—     annul the decision of 4 June 2002 whereby the selection              Favart, lawyers.
      board in Competition COM/A/11/01 eliminated the
      applicant at the conclusion of the preliminary tests and
      did not admit her to the following tests, and also annul
      the decision of 19 July 2002 whereby the same selection              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      board confirmed its first decision after re-examination;
      and                                                                  —     substantially reduce the fine imposed on Gyproc by the
                                                                                decision of the Commission of 27 November 2002 in
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     Case COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard relating to a
                                                                                proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant took part in the preliminary tests of Open
Competition COM/A/11/01. By the decision of the selection
board of 4 June 2002, the applicant was informed that she
had not attained the minimum number of points required and                 Pleas in law and main arguments
could therefore not be admitted to the further tests in the
competition. In the annex to the decision, it was explained
that one question of the test had been annulled, and that                  The decision which is the subject-matter of this application
therefore only 39 answers had been taken into consideration                concerns an arrangement between BPB, Gebrüder Knauf
in evaluating the tests.                                                   Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and the
                                                                           applicant on the plasterboard market. The applicant does not
                                                                           deny the existence of certain practices which the Commission
The applicant argues that the two decisions against which her
                                                                           held to be infringements. It never the less drew the defendant’s
action is brought infringe the principle of proportionality,
                                                                           attention to the fact that the scope of the complaints against it
inasmuch as it was not necessary, in order to ensure equality              should significantly reduce over time, space and intensity.
of treatment between candidates and an objective assessment
of the aptitudes of all the participants in the competition,
retrospectively to annul a question of the test in all the
language versions, whereas all that was needed was to remove               In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that the
irregularities appearing in only one of them. Those decisions              Commission committed an error of assessment and infringed
were, moreover, disproportionate in that they did not take                 Article 81 of the EC Treaty by considering that it exchanged
account of the necessary balance between the general interest              data on the volume of sales on the German, United Kingdom,
and individual interests. It was the annulment of one question             French and Benelux markets between June 1996 and Nov-
and, therefore, the failure to take the effectively ‘correct’ answer       ember 1998.
into account, which caused the selection board not to admit
the applicant to the subsequent stages of the preliminary tests.
This is therefore a case of hardship, which the selection board
has not treated as such.                                                   The applicant also takes the view that the defendant committed
                                                                           an error of assessment and infringed Article 15(2) of Regu-
                                                                           lation No 17 and the guidelines on the calculation of
                                                                           fines, Article 253 of the EC Treaty and the principles of
                                                                           proportionality, equal of treatment, fairness and of the protec-
                                                                           tion of legitimate expectations:
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Gyproc Benelux                       —     by failing to take into account, first, the very small overall
 N.V. against Commission of the European Communities                             size of the of the applicant and the ‘one-item’ nature of
                                                                                its business and, secondly, the absence of any illegal
                          (Case T-50/03)                                         conduct on the part of the applicant on the UK market,
                                                                                or on the French or Benelux markets between June 1996
                                                                                and April 1998.
                         (2003/C 101/78)
                                                                           —     by failing to take account, as mitigating circumstances,
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                first, of the role as ‘follower’ of the applicant and,
                                                                                secondly, of the ceasing of the infringement by the
                                                                                applicant as soon as the Commission intervened.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Gyproc


title: Case C-226/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2007 — Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH v Hauptzollamt Köln

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2007 — Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH v Hauptzollamt Köln
   (Case C-226/07)
   (2007/C 155/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln
   Question referred
   Is Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which used gas oil on which tax was paid coming within heading 2710 of the Combined Nomenclature in order to produce electricity, and which has claimed a refund of that tax, can rely directly on this provision?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.


title: Case T-122/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Robert Benkö and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/22

         Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Robert Benkö and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-122/05)
   (2005/C 171/38)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by Robert Benkö, Kohfidisch (Austria), Nikolaus Draskovich, Güssing (Austria), Alexander Freiherr von Kottwitz-Erdödy, Kohlfidisch (Austria), Peter Masser, Schwanberg (Austria), Alfred Prinz von und zu Liechtenstein, Deutschlandsberg (Austria), Marenzi Privatstiftung, Ebergassing (Austria), Marktgemeinde Götzendorf an der Leitha (Austria), Gemeinde Ebergassing (Austria), Ernst Harrach, Bruck an der Leitha (Austria), Schlossgut Schönbühel-Aggstein AG, Vaduz, and Heinrich Rüdiger Fürst Starhemberg'sche Familienstiftung, Vaduz, represented by M. Schaffgotsch, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the contested Commission decision in its entirety or, should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

               2.

               annul the contested decision in respect of all the Austrian sites of Community importance (code AT in Annex 1 to the contested decision) or, should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

               3.

               annul the inclusion of sites AT 1114813, AT 2242000, AT 1220000, AT 1205A00, AT 3122000 and AT 3120000 in the contested Commission decision or, should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

               4.

               annul the inclusion of sites specified in Annex 1 to the contested decision as sites of Community importance for habitats and species with a degree of representativity and global assessment of B, C and D (in the alternative, C and D or, in the further alternative, D only) in accordance with the standard data sheets of the Member States, in respect of

                           (a)

                           all the sites included in the contested decision (as listed in Annex 1) or, in the alternative

                           (b)

                           all the Austrian sites (code AT in Annex 1) or, in the alternative

                           (c)

                           only sites AT 1114813, AT 2242000, AT 1220000, AT 1205A00, AT 3122000 and AT 3120000,

               5.

               in any event, however, order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Commission Decision C(2004) 4031 of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, (1) the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region, (2) properties belonging to the applicants fall under the protective regime established by that directive.
   The applicants claim inter alia that the contested decision was not based on the necessary weighing of benefits as between the higher public interests and the rights of the citizen and the regional authority, who are directly affected.
   The applicants submit that the contested decision is at variance with Directive 92/43/EEC since the necessary bases for estimating the required cost of financing were not properly drawn up, and since the action framework to be adopted pursuant to Article 8 of the directive was not drawn up and would not have been sufficient.
   The applicants further complain that, because of the division of jurisdiction in Austria, the coherence of the network of areas of conservation called for by Directive 92/43/EEC is not guaranteed, and that in practically all cases the areas of conservation actually end at Land frontiers, which in the applicants' view is wrong both under Community law and from the technical point of view of nature conservation.
   The applicants also submit that the Commission failed, in the contested decision, to state expressly and specifically for which species and habitats the sites now listed as sites of Community importance are actually of Community importance.
   Finally, the applicants claim that, as far as the sites affecting the applicants are concerned, inaccurate technical bases were turned into the substance of the decision, and that the sites were therefore incorrectly declared to be sites of Community importance for certain species and habitats.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 382, p. 1.


C 118/28              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-506/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-479/98 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/70)                                                   (2001/C 118/73)
By order of 22 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 4 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-506/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-479/98: Kingdom of Spain v
European Communities v Portugal.                                    Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-189/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-209/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/71)                                                   (2001/C 118/74)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-189/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-209/99: (reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Spain.                                       ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn): Birgit Frings v Blenderm-
                                                                    ann GmbH.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-468/99 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-312/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/72)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/75)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-468/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain              from the register of Case C-312/99: Commission of the
and Northern Ireland.                                               European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.


title: Case C-639/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2014  — Commission v Republic of Poland Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Reduced rate — Articles designed for fire protection

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-639/13) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Reduced rate - Articles designed for fire protection)
   (2015/C 065/21)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Holds that by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to supplies of goods designed for fire protection, set out in Annex No 3 to the Law of 11 March 2004 concerning tax on goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III to that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case T-232/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Couture Tech v OHIM (Representation of the Soviet coat of arms) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing the Soviet coat of arms — Absolute ground for refusal — Whether contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Couture Tech v OHIM (Representation of the Soviet coat of arms)
   (Case T-232/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing the Soviet coat of arms - Absolute ground for refusal - Whether contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 319/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Couture Tech Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: B. Whyatt, Barrister)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2010 (Case R 1509/2008-2) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing the Soviet coat of arms as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Couture Tech Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Action brough on 29 July 1997 by Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-224/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              there is no valid legal basis for imposing Community
                                                                         tax. As a result, there is a duty to repay the amounts
                                                                         unduly paid. The defendant has acted contrary to
— annul or at least declare invalid the decision contained               Community law, in particular the Protocol on
     in the defendant's letter of 30 April 1997 refusing to              Privileges and Immunities, legislation implementing
     repay the Community tax which the applicant has                     that Protocol and Article 212 of the EC Treaty
     paid since 1989,                                                    by deciding to withhold Community tax from the
                                                                         earnings of freelance interpreters, such as the
                                                                         applicant, working for it;
— declare that there is no valid legal basis for imposing
     Community tax in the case of the applicant, who
     works for the defendant as a freelance interpreter, and        3 . the decision, irrespective of its form, by which the
     that the withholding of Community tax from his                      Parliament laid down that freelance interpreters should
     earnings is invalid and unlawful,                                   be charged Community tax is invalid for want of a
                                                                         valid legal basis. In so far as that decision purports to
                                                                         be the basis for charging Community tax on the
— in so far as is necessary, declare invalid the European                applicant's earnings and for refusing to repay him the
     Parliament's decision subjecting the earnings of                    tax, the applicant asks the Court to declare that
                                                                         decision invalid or at least to declare that no reliance
     freelance interpreters to Community tax and Article 8
     of the Agreement with the AIIC,                                     can be placed in it vis-a-vis the applicant ( objection of
                                                                         illegality, Article 184 of the EC Treaty );
— order that the Community tax paid by the applicant                4. Article 8 of the Agreement with the AIIC, which forms
     since 1 January 1989 be repaid together with interest               an integral part of the agreements concluded by the
     at 8 % or at the applicable legal rate,                             applicant with the defendant, is void or at least
                                                                         invalid . Hence the Court should declare that no
                                                                         reliance can be placed in it vis-a-vis the applicant since
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 it lacks any legal basis;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 5 . Article 8 and the procedure for repayment contained
                                                                         in Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement with the AIIC, as
                                                                         introduced as from 1984, are also in breach of the
The case is concerned with the imposition of Community                   principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
tax on the earnings of freelance interpreters from their
work for Community institutions, more specifically the
work performed by the applicant for the European
Parliament.
Since the applicant — a Netherlands national — is                   Action brough on 29 July 1997 by Isabel Martinez del
resident in Switzerland, all his earnings are subject to            Peral Cagigal against the Commission of the European
Swiss income tax. Since 1984 Community tax has been                                             Communities
withheld from his earnings as a freelance interpreter of the                                 ( Case T-224/97)
European Parliament, resulting in that income being
subject to double taxation .                                                                   ( 97/C 318/54 )
The defendant's decision contained in the letter of 30 April                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
 1997 refusing to grant the applicant's claim to repayment
of Community tax since 1989 and maintaining the
imposition of Community tax in future should be annulled
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
or at least declared invalid on the following grounds :
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1997
                                                                    by Isabel Martinez del Peral Cagigal, residing at Brussels,
                                                                    represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Alex
 1 . the defendant's reliance on Council Regulation ( EEC )          Subirachs Amigo, both of the Barcelona Bar, with an
      No 260/68 and on the Protocol on Privileges and               address for service at 78 Avenue d'Audeghem, 1040
      Immunities is to no avail, since the applicant is not an      Brussels .
      official or other servant of the • Community and,
      accordingly, reference thereto cannot serve as the basis
      for refusing repayment;                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . the defendant's refusal to repay the Community tax               1 . annul the Commission's decision refusing to reclassify
      paid by the applicant since 1989 is unlawful since                  the applicant in another step;
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/28              1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
2 . declare that the applicant is entitled to have her initial         The applicants claim that the Court should:
    classification reviewed as requested by way of the
    document of 21 June 1996 ;
                                                                       — declare that the Commission has failed to act,
3 . order the European Commission to pay:                              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    — the difference in the applicant's salary as from the
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         date when the decision amending the criteria for
         classification began to produce its effects, that is
         5 October 19 95 , together with the accrued                   The applicants complain that the defendant has failed
         interest,                                                     to enforce the judgments of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of 29 June 1993 ( 1 ) and 18 September 1996 (2 ). Those
    — ECU 1 000 by way of compensation for the non                    judgments were delivered following a complaint made
         material damage caused, and                                   against certain undertakings alleging that they had
                                                                       colluded to secure exclusive control of the market for
                                                                       Japanese vehicles in France by excluding products of the
     — the costs of these proceedings .                                makes imported by the applicants, and that they had
                                                                       organized the division between them of sub-quotas under
                                                                       a system known as 'voluntary limitation ', eliminating all
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    competition .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those               The applicants claim that, following the annulment by the
relied on in Case T-16/97 (').                                         aforementioned judgment of 29 June 1993 of the decision
                                                                       rejecting the complaints, the Commission maintained its
                                                                       position in a letter of 9 March 1994 which formed the
In particular, the applicant considers that the varying of             subject matter of a fresh action for annulment culminating
an   internal    Commission decision as a         result of the        in the judgment of 18 September 1996 , likewise referred
annulment by the Court of previous legislation, where                  to above, by which the decision rejecting the complaints
such legislation was the basis for an erroneous                        was annulled .
classification, constitutes a new fact capable of starting the
period for lodging the complaint running again.
                                                                       In those circumstances, by letter of 11 April 1997, Asia
                                                                       Motor France, Mr Cesbron, EAS and Monin Automobiles
(') OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .                                    and their liquidators requested the defendant to send to
                                                                       the French importers of the Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi ,
                                                                       Toyota and Nissan marks a statement of objections, in
                                                                       order that, at the very least, a finding should finally
                                                                        be made as to the existence of the restrictive practice
                                                                       complained of and that steps should be taken to impose
                                                                        penalties in respect of it.
Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Asia Motor France
 and others against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                                Following the expiry of a period of two months, the
                                                                        applicants brought the present action .
                          ( Case T-225/97)
                            ( 97/C 318/55 )                             (') Case T-7/92 ([ 1993 ] ECR 11-669 ).
                                                                        ( 2 ) Case T-387/94 ([ 19961 ECR 11-961 ).
                 (Language of the case: French)
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 30 July 1997                   Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Guerin Automobiles
 by Asia Motor France, the principal place of business of                    against the Commission of the European Communities
 which is at Livange ( Luxembourg ), Jean-Michel Cesbron,                                          Case T-226/97 )
 businessman , trading as JMC Automobiles, residing at
 Livange ( Luxembourg ), Monin Automobiles, the principal                                           ( 97/C 318/56
 place of business of which is at Bourg-de-Peage ( France ),
 and Europe Auto Service ( EAS ), the principal place of                                  (Language of the case: French)
 business of which is at Livange ( Luxembourg ), represented
 by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   An action against the Commission of the European
 Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                             Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-329/02 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2002 (faxed on 12 September 2002) by SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH against the judgment delivered on 2 July 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-323/00 between SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market

text:
23.11.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/11
1.     Do Paragraphs 16 and 18 of the Sozialgesetzbuch (Code             group with turbine and generator adapted for low heads’,
       of Social Law) relating to statutory sickness insurance           which was terminated by Commission under Article 8. The
       (‘SGB V’), which in this country make reimbursement of            contract is governed by French law and the parties have agreed
       the costs of dental treatment carried out by a dentist in         to submit any disputes to the Court of Justice of the European
       another Member State subject to authorisation based on            Communities.
       the merits of the case by the insured person’s social
       security institution, infringe Articles 59 and 60 of the
       EC Treaty, even where the national statutory sickness
       insurance scheme is based on the benefit-in-kind principle
       (and not, as in Case C-158/96 Kohll v Union des caisses
       de maladie (1), on the cost-reimbursement principle)?
2.     If, depending on the answer to Question 1, the defendant          Appeal brought on 18 September 2002 (faxed on 12 Sep-
       were to be required, for reasons connected with Com-              tember 2002) by SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH
       munity law, to reimburse the costs of the dental treatment        against the judgment delivered on 2 July 2002 by the
       (in this case provided in the Republic of Austria), is the        Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       amount of the claim for reimbursement governed by the             European Communities in Case T-323/00 between SAT.1
       costs actually incurred or is that amount restricted to the       SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and the Office for Harmonis-
       rates applicable under the national sickness insurance                              ation of the Internal Market
       scheme (in this case that of the Federal Republic of
       Germany)?
                                                                                (Case C-329/02 P)
( 1) European Court Reports 1998, page I-01931.                                                   (2002/C 289/19)
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 July 2002 by
                                                                         the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities in Case T-323/00 between SAT.1
                                                                         SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation
Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Com-
                                                                         of the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought
mission of the European Communities against Hydrowatt
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                       SARL (‘Hydrowatt’)
                                                                         18 September 2002 (faxed on 12 September 2002) by
                                                                         SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH, represented by Reinhard
                          (Case C-323/02)                                Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, Büsing, Müffelmann and Theye,
                                                                         Marktstraße 3, D-28195 Bremen, with an address for service
                          (2002/C 289/18)                                in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The appellant claims that the Court should:
An action against Hydrowatt Sarl (‘Hydrowatt’) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               1.    set aside the contested judgment ( 1), in so far as it
16 September 2002 by the Commission of the European                            dismissed the action (2) as formulated in the form of order
Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agent and                   sought;
E. Cabau, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         2.    order the Office to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should order Hydrowatt to:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—      pay to the Commission the principal sum of
       25 109 euros, together with default interest of
       23 422,91 euros, making a total of 48 531,91 euros;               —     Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation
                                                                               No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘the Regu-
—      pay the Commission’s costs in these proceedings.                        lation’): the Court erred in law in finding that
                                                                               Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation also pursues the general
                                                                               interest objective of allowing signs covered by that
                                                                               provision to be used freely by everyone. There is,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                however, no evident reason to assume that indications
                                                                               which are merely not suitable for distinguishing goods or
                                                                               services according to their origin must be available for
The action seeks reimbursement of the part of a subsidy                        free use. In the present case it was therefore necessary for
awarded under a contract for the completion of a project ‘New                  the Court to examine whether the compound sign ‘SAT.2’
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.11.2002
      enables the relevant class of persons to distinguish the            at the Court Registry on 23 September 2002, for a preliminary
      services in question from services of another business              ruling in the proceedings between Saatgut-Treuhandverwal-
      source. Instead the Court based its view that the sign in           tungs-GmbH and Brangewitz GmbH on the following ques-
      question fell within the scope of Article 7(1)(b) of the            tions concerning the interpretation of Article 14(3), sixth
      Regulation on the fact that it did not satisfy criteria for         indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1) of 27 July
      protection governed by other provisions. It interprets              1994 on Community Plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227,
      Article 7(1)(b) as a catch-all provision for cases in which         p. 1) in conjunction with Article 9 of Commission Regulation
      the trade marks applied for, despite having descriptive             (EC) No 1768/95 ( 2) of 24 July 1995:
      character, do not fall within the scope of the grounds
      for rejecting protection under Article 7(1)(c) of the               1.     Are the abovementioned provisions to be interpreted as
      Regulation.                                                                meaning that the holder of a variety protected under
                                                                                Regulation No 2100/94 can request the supplier of
      The splitting by the Court of the trade mark ‘SAT.2’ into                  processing services or the processor to provide the
      its component parts does not reflect the view and
                                                                                information specified in those provisions, regardless of
      approach adopted by consumers. The distinctive charac-                     whether there is any evidence that the supplier of
      ter or lack of distinctive character of the trade mark must                processsing services has supplied a processing service in
      to some degree be apparent ‘at first sight’.                               respect of the protected variety concerned or that the
                                                                                processor has processed the protected variety concerned?
(in the alternative)                                                      2.     If there must be evidence for the factual situation referred
                                                                                to in Question 1:
—     Infringement of the principle of equal treatment: it may
                                                                                Must the supplier of processing services or processor
      be correct that a person cannot rely on a failure to apply
                                                                                provide information pursuant to Article 14(3), sixth
      the law which has benefitted another person. In the
                                                                                indent, of Regulation No 2100/94 in conjunction with
      present case, however, the appellant did not point to
                                                                                Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95 with regard to all the
      wrongly-decided isolated cases, but to the Office’s clearly
                                                                                farmers to whom he has supplied the processing service
      recognisable general practice of allowing in principle
                                                                                in respect of the protected variety concerned and/or for
      applications for registration of trademarks consisting of a
                                                                                whom he has carried out the processing of the protected
      combination of numbers and descriptive indications/
                                                                                variety concerned, or only with regard to those farmers
      abbreviations. The appellant refers in this connection in
                                                                                in respect of whom the holder has evidence that the
      particular to the trademarks ‘T-SAT’ (00 918 409), ‘One
                                                                                supplier of processing services has supplied processing
      Tel’ (001 096 312, 000 983 973, 001 105 089), ‘MEDIA
                                                                                services in respect of the protected variety concerned
      4’ (001 179 530, ‘CAR ONE’ (000 707 430), ‘D1’ (000
                                                                                and/or the processor has carried out the processing of the
      920 157) and ‘B-MAIL’ (000 896 399).
                                                                                protected variety concerned?
( 1) OJ 2002 C 202, p. 23.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 227, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 2001 C 4, p. 5.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ L 173, p. 14.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                     Action brought on 24 September 2002 by Commission
Düsseldorf by order of that Court of 17 September 2002                       of the European Communities against French Republic
in the proceedings between Saatgut-Treuhandverwal-
             tungs-GmbH and Brangewitz GmbH
                                                                                (Case C-340/02)
                         (Case C-336/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/21)
                         (2002/C 289/20)
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Septem-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Düsseldorf               represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
(Regional Court, Düsseldorf) of 17 September 2002, received               service in Luxembourg.


title: Case F-70/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2010 — Nikolchov v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/57

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2010 — Nikolchov v Commission
   (Case F-70/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 209/93
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009, p. 16.


title: Case T-490/10: Action brought on 14 October 2010 — Endesa and Endesa Generación v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/52

         Action brought on 14 October 2010 — Endesa and Endesa Generación v Commission
   (Case T-490/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/81
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Endesa, SA (Madrid, Spain), Endesa Generación, SA (Seville, Spain), (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               Declare the application to be founded and annul the Decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred by the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against the same decision as that challenged in Case T-484/10 Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission and Case T-486/10 Iberdrola v Commission.
   The applicants put forward three pleas in support of their action:

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges that the Commission made a manifest error when it concluded that the notified measure was covered by Directive 2003/54/EC. (1) In relation to that plea, the applicants claim that:

                           —

                           The Commission made a manifest error in having interpreted Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/54/EC as not requiring the national authorities to put forward, and prove the existence of, reasons concerning security of supply in order to be able to adopt measures which are incompatible with the rules pursuing harmonisation in the directive. Such an interpretation is in breach of the obligation to give a restrictive interpretation to a provision establishing an exception.

                           —

                           The Commission’s interpretation of Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/54/EC would mean that Member States could make indefinite use of a rule which may, by virtue of Article 114 of the Treaty, be of only transitory application. The Commission’s interpretation is therefore incompatible with the legal basis of Directive 2003/54/EC.

                           —

                           The Commission made a manifest error in having calculated the 15 % threshold laid down in Directive 2003/54/EC in such a way that it does not have the practical effect sought by the European Union legislature.

                           —

                           The Commission made a manifest error given that there are no problems of security of supply in Spain such as to justify the adoption of the notified measure.

                           —

                           The notified measure does not comply with the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 2003/54/EC, which provides that public service obligations must be clearly defined, transparent, non discriminatory, verifiable and must guarantee equality of access for EU electricity companies to national consumers.

               2.

               The second plea alleges that the Commission made a manifest error in holding that Article 106(2) of the Treaty is applicable to the notified measure. On the basis of that, the applicants maintain that:

                           —

                           The Commission made a manifest error in taking the view that the provision made by Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/54/EC renders it unnecessary to consider whether in the present case the mandatory conditions for establishing a public service obligation is met.

                           —

                           The Commission made a manifest error in failing to assess the proportionality of the notified measure correctly and in having limited that analysis to determining that the compensation was not excessive.

                           —

                           In its application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, the Commission failed to assess the infringement which the notified measure entailed for the right to property laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               In relation to their third plea, concerning infringement of certain rules relating to procedural matters, the applicants claim that:

                           —

                           The Commission infringed Article 108 of the Treaty and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) in failing to initiate a formal investigation procedure, despite the fact that there was objective and coherent evidence showing that the assessment of the compatibility of the notified measure entailed serious difficulties.

                           —

                           In using the pre-notification phase in order to avoid opening a formal investigation procedure, the Commission misused its powers.

      (1)  Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-379/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of Skatteministeriet against Imexpo Trading A/S

text:
11.1.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 7/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
by order of that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of                Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg by order of
        Skatteministeriet against Imexpo Trading A/S                    that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of Fantom
                                                                         Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH against Dornbirn
                         (Case C-379/02)
                                                                                (Case C-380/02)
                          (2003/C 7/18)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/19)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret of                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
15 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 October           European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Skatteministeriet         tungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (independent administrative
against Imexpo Trading A/S on the following question:                   chamber for Vorarlberg) of 15 October 2002, received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 21 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH
Must Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 ( 1) of             against Dornbirn on the following questions:
23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature, as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 ( 2) of
9 September 1996, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/
97 (3) of 4 November 1997, Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2261/98 ( 4) of 26 October 1998 and Commission Regu-                 Question 1
lation (EC) No 2204/99 (5) of 12 October 1999, be construed
as meaning that chairmats consisting of loose sheets of clear
plastic                                                                 Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
                                                                        ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
—     with straight, round or bevelled sides, which may be              administrative provisions relating to the application of review
      machine-milled or cast                                            procedures to the award of public supply and public works
                                                                        contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that under it
                                                                        entitlement to apply for a review procedure is available to any
—     with grippers on the under side for carpeted floors and           person seeking to receive a specific public contract whose
      without grippers for wooden and other hard-surface                award is pending, irrespective of whether such person has
      floors,                                                           suffered or may suffer loss as a result of the infringement of
                                                                        the law alleged?
—     with or without anti-slip film,
—     with or without a punched handle,
                                                                        Question 2
—     which are used as mats for chairs in order to protect the
      existing floor covering or for reasons of ergonomics,
                                                                        In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:
—     and which are further described in the attached brochure
      (Annex 1),
                                                                        Is the abovementioned provision of the directive to be
were to be classified, over the period from 15 July 1997 to             construed as meaning that, where a bid was not eliminated by
20 March 2000, as floor coverings of plastics under tariff              the contracting authority but the review body assumes and
subheading 3918 10 90 90 in Chapter 39 or as furniture of               establishes as a preliminary matter that the bid had properly
plastics under tariff subheading 9403 70 90 00 in Chapter 94?           to be eliminated, an alleged infringement of the law — namely
                                                                        the contracting authority’s acceptance of another bid as the
                                                                        best bid, has occasioned or may occasion loss to the bidder
                                                                        concerned, and the review procedure must therefore be
( 1) OJ L 256, p. 1.                                                    available to that bidder?
( 2) OJ L 238, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 312, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 292, p. 1.
( 5) OJ L 278, p. 1.                                                    (1 ) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.


18.3.2000             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 79/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-337/99 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-436/99 P (1)
                        (2000/C 79/42)                                                      (2000/C 79/45)
By order of 9 December 1999 the President of the Court of          By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-337/99: Commission of the European       from the register of Case C-436/99 P: Karl Meyer v Commission
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                  of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.                                        (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-252/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/43)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/46)
By order of 12 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 18 January 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-115/99: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-252/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/44)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-272/99 (1)
By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                   (2000/C 79/47)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/98: Commission of the              By order of 19 January 2000 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-272/99: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                          European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case T-85/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Gabel Industria Tessile SpA v OHIM — Creaciones Garel (GABEL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark GABEL — Earlier Community figurative mark GAREL — Partial refusal of registration — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action — Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Gabel Industria Tessile SpA v OHIM — Creaciones Garel (GABEL)
   (Case T-85/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark GABEL - Earlier Community figurative mark GAREL - Partial refusal of registration - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action - Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 183/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Gabel Industria Tessile SpA (Rovellasca, Italy) (represented by: A. Petruzzelli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Creaciones Garel, SA. (Logroño, Spain)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2007 (Case R 960/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Creaciones Garel, SA, and Gabel Industria Tessile SpA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 January 2007 (Case R 960/2006-2).

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders Gabel Industria Tessile SpA and OHIM each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Giuseppe Camaur against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-603/97)

text:
7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 72/19
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     was paid,                                                      relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
                                                                    Giulia v. Commission (1).
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
     Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those            Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Cointra
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                 Transport and Trade Co. Srl against the Commission of
Giulia v. Commission (1).                                                             the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-604/97)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                                (98/C 72/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Giuseppe                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Camaur against the Commission of the European                       Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                         Communities                                1997 by Cointra Transport and Trade Co. Srl, represented
                                                                    by Marcello Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars
                       (Case T-603/97)
                                                                    of Florence and Trieste, with an address for service at the
                          (98/C 72/43)                              latter's Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
An action against the Commission of the European                         30 July 1997,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
1997 by Ditta Giuseppe Camaur, represented by Marcello
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
and Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's
                                                                         the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                                                                         the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
                                                                         was paid,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
     30 July 1997,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with           relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid         Giulia v. Commission (1).
     was paid,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.