title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2002 in Case T-237/00 Patrick Reynolds v European Parliament (Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service — Article 38 of the Staff Regulations Po — litical group — Early termination of secondment — Rights of the defence — Non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 109/45
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;            composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
J. Plingers, Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on            Judges; J. Plingers, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
7 February 2002, in which it:                                             judgment on 23 January 2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.   Annuls the decision of 18 July 2000 of the Secretary-General
1.    Annuls the Council’s decision of 5 June 2000 refusing the
                                                                               of the Parliament terminating the applicant’s secondment in the
      applicant access to certain reports drawn up by the Centre for
                                                                               interests of the service to the political group EDD and
      Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum, to certain
                                                                               reinstating him in the Directorate-General for Information and
      reports of joint missions or reports of missions undertaken by
                                                                               Public relations with effect from 15 July 2000;
      Member States sent to the Centre, and to information contained
      in the list of persons responsible in the Member States for
                                                                          2.   Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant a sum corresponding
      asylum applications to which access is permitted in certain
                                                                               to the difference between the remuneration which he should
      Member States, with the exception of those persons’ telephone
      and fax numbers;                                                         have received as an official on secondment in Grade A2, Step 1,
                                                                               and that which he received following his reinstatement in
                                                                               Grade LA5, Step 3, for the period 15 July 2000 to
2.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its          30 November 2000, plus default interest at the rate of 5,25 %
      own costs.                                                               from the date on which the amounts making up the sum
                                                                               referred to in paragraph 149 were payable until the date of
                                                                               actual payment;
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                          3.   Declares the action for damages inadmissible in so far as the
                                                                               applicant seeks compensation for the harm caused by the
                                                                               conduct, not involving the taking of decisions, of the EDD
                                                                               group and certain of its members;
                                                                          4.   Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of 1 euro
                                                                               by way of symbolic damages for the non-pecuniary harm
                                                                               sustained as a result of the adoption of the contested decision;
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               5.   Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs of the main
                                                                               proceedings;
                        of 23 January 2002
                                                                          6.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs in the interlocutory
                                                                               proceedings.
in Case T-237/00 Patrick Reynolds v European Parlia-
                               ment (1)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302, 21.10.2000.
(Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service —
Article 38 of the Staff Regulations Po — litical group —
Early termination of secondment — Rights of the defence —
         Non-contractual liability of the Community)
                         (2002/C 109/90)                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             of 11 December 2001
                                                                          in Case T-99/97: Willem Stols v Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
In Case T-237/00: Patrick Reynolds, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by P. Legros                (Officials — Application for reclassification in grade —
and S. Rodrigues, lawyers, with an address for service in                 Objection of inadmissibility — Material new fact —
Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von                                              Admissibility)
Hertzen and D. Moore) — application for, first, annulment of
the decision of 18 July 2000 of the Secretary-General of the
Parliament terminating the applicant’s secondment in the                                           (2002/C 109/91)
interests of the service to the political group ‘Europe of
Democracies and Diversities’ and reinstating him in the                                      (Language of the case: French)
directorate-General for Information and public Relations and,
second, damages in respect of the harm sustained by the
applicant as a result of the adoption of that decision by the
defendant and of the acts of the political group and certain of           In Case T-99/97: Willem Stols, an official of the Council of the
its members — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                European Union, residing at SE Halsteren (Netherlands),


title: Case C-642/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2016 — Toni Klement v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Bullerjan GmbH (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing the form of an oven — Article 51(1)(a) — Application for revocation of an EU trade mark — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) — Genuine use of the mark — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2016 — Toni Klement v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Bullerjan GmbH

   (Case C-642/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Three-dimensional mark representing the form of an oven - Article 51(1)(a) - Application for revocation of an EU trade mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) - Genuine use of the mark - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity))
   (2017/C 030/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Toni Klement (represented by: J. Weiser, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent), Bullerjan GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2015, Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven) (T-211/14, not published, EU:T:2015:688);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 1998 in Case C-366/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Charleroi): Louisette Cordelle v. Office National des Pensions (ONP) (Social security - Articles 12(2) and 46a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - National rules against overlapping - Benefits of the same kind)

text:
11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 113/3
(such as the automatic renewal of the letting agreement)                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
suggest that the duration stated in the letting agreement
does not reflect the parties' true intention, in which case                                 (Fifth Chamber)
the actual total duration of the accommodation, rather                                    of 12 February 1998
than that specified in the letting agreement, would have to
be taken into consideration.                                         in Case C-366/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal du Travail, Charleroi): Louisette Cordelle v.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
                                                                                Office National des Pensions (ONP) (1)
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                     (Social security Ð Articles 12(2) and 46a of Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð National rules against overlapping
                                                                                Ð Benefits of the same kind)
                                                                                (98/C 113/08)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 12 February 1998
in Case C-163/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
from the Pretura Circondariale, La Spezia): Criminal                           published in the European Court Reports)
      proceedings against Silvano Raso and Others (1)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Competition Ð Special or
exclusive rights Ð Undertakings holding a port terminal              In Case C-366/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
                           concession)                               Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal du Travail
                         (98/C 113/07)                               (Labour Court), Charleroi, Belgium, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                     between Louisette Cordelle and Office National des
                                                                     Pensions (ONP) Ð on the interpretation of Article 12(2)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                     on the application of social-security schemes to employed
                                                                     persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                     families moving within the Community (2), as amended
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     2 June 1983 (3), and of Article 46a of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 2001/83 and subsequently amended by Council
In Case C-163/96: reference to the Court pursuant to                 Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (4) Ð the
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura                        Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
Circondariale, La Spezia (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in        President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against           Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.
Silvano Raso and Others Ð on the interpretation of                   Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O.
Articles 59, 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty Ð the Court               Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho                12 February 1998, in which it has ruled:
de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 February 1998,
in which it has ruled:                                               Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                     14 June 1971 on the application of social-security schemes
                                                                     to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted              members of their families moving within the Community,
as precluding a national provision which reserves to a               as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
dock-work company the right to supply temporary labour               No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, does not preclude a Member
to other undertakings operating in the port in which it is           State from applying a rule against overlapping under
established, when that company is itself authorised to               which, when calculating a survivor's pension awarded
carry out dock work.                                                 under its own legislation on the basis of the deceased
                                                                     spouse's working life, account is to be taken of benefits to
                                                                     which the survivor is entitled in his or her own right in
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.                                              another Member State where those benefits are to be
                                                                     classified as retirement pensions or other equivalent
                                                                     benefits under the legislation of the first Member State. It
                                                                     is for the national court to decide on the classification, for
 ---pagebreak--- C 113/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.4.98
the purpose of applying that rule against overlapping, of               laws of the Member States relating to the application of
the benefits in question.                                               the principle of equal pay for men and women.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
(1) OJ C 26, 25.1.1997.                                                 (2) OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19.
(2) Official Journal English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.         (3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 6.
(4) OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 February 1998
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   in Case C-212/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Tribunal Administratif, Saint-Denis de la ReÂunion):
                      of 17 February 1998                               Paul Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil ReÂgional de la
                                                                                ReÂunion (1)
in Case C-249/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Industrial Tribunal, Southampton): Lisa Jacqueline                  (Dock dues' (octroi de mer) Ð Fiscal rules applicable to
               Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd (1)                       the French overseas departments Ð Decision 89/688/EEC
                                                                        Ð Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty
(Equal treatment of men and women Ð Refusal of travel                                        Ð Internal taxation)
          concessions to cohabitees of the same sex)
                                                                                (98/C 113/10)
                          (98/C 113/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: English)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-249/96: reference to the Court pursuant to                    In Case C-212/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Industrial Tribunal,              Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal
Southampton, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                Administratif (Administrative Court), Saint-Denis de la
pending before that tribunal between Lisa Jacqueline                    ReÂunion, France, for a preliminary ruling in the
Grant and South-West Trains Ltd Ð on the interpretation                 proceedings pending before that court between Paul
of Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Council Directive 75/117/              Chevassus-Marche and Conseil ReÂgional de la ReÂunion Ð
EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the                     on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 13 and the
laws of the Member States relating to the application of                second paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty, and on
the principle of equal pay for men and women (2), and                   the interpretation and validity of Council Decision 89/688/
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                  EEC of 22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                  (octroi de mer) in the French overseas departments (2) Ð
men and women as regards access to employment,                          the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
vocational training and promotion, and working                          President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet
conditions (3), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                 (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.                       de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.                 Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                    and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; D.
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G.                      Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 1998, in
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                    which it has ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
which it has ruled:                                                     Consideration of Council Decision 89/688/EEC of
                                                                        22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues in the
                                                                        French overseas departments, in so far as it authorises a
                                                                        system of exemptions from the charge termed octroi de
The refusal by an employer to allow travel concessions to               mer subject to strict conditions which it lays down, has
the person of the same sex with whom a worker has a                     disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect its validity.
stable relationship, where such concessions are allowed to
a worker's spouse or to the person of the opposite sex
with whom a worker has a stable relationship outside                    (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 46.
marriage, does not constitute discrimination prohibited by
Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Council Directive 75/117/
EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the


title: Case T-33/03: Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 135/31
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                         of 10 March 2003                                                              of 26 March 2003
                                                                             in Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands v
in Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro v                                     Commission of the European Communities
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             (Procedure for interim relief — Overseas countries and
                                                                             territories — Request for establishment of a partnership
(Project for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona-French                 working party — Alleged decision to refuse — Partial
border high-speed line — Financial assistance from the                       inadmissibility of heads of relief sought — Admissibility of
Cohesion Fund — Expected impact of the route on the                                        main action — Urgency — Absence)
environs of the Soto de Aguilar protected area — Com-
mission refusal to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil
obligations — Action for annulment — Natural and legal                                                  (2003/C 135/51)
   persons — Act directly affecting them — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2003/C 135/50)
                                                                             In Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands,
                                                                             represented by E. Sharpston, QC, against Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                          European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and B. Eggers) —
                                                                             application for interim measures in respect of the ongoing
                                                                             legislative consideration of the Commission’s ‘Proposal for a
                                                                             Council directive to ensure effective taxation of savings income
                                                                             in the form of interest payments within the Community’
                                                                             (COM/2001/0400 final, OJ 2001 C 270 E, p. 259), submitted
In Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro, established                 on 18 July 2001 and based on Article 94 EC — the President
in Zaragoza (Spain), represented by J. Ariño Barcelona, lawyer,              of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 26 March
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                       2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
G. Valero Jordana), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
R. Silva de Lapuerta) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission of 13 July 2001 refusing to                       1.    The application is dismissed;
initiate proceedings for a finding of failure to fulfil obligations
under Article 226 EC against the Kingdom of Spain and                        2.    Costs are reserved.
seeking the adoption of measures intended to prevent the
Spanish authorities from implementing their decision of
17 March 1999 concerning the route to be followed by the
Madrid-Barcelona-French border high-speed line — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 10 March 2003, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                               Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd.
                                                                             against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
1.     The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Case T-33/03)
2.     The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred
       by the Commission.                                                                               (2003/C 135/52)
3.     The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.                        (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                             of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
( 1) OJ 2002 C 44.
                                                                             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/32              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.6.2003
4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand,                  Pleas in law:                  The applicant claims that a mini-
represented by C. Gassauer-Fleissner, lawyer, with an address                                            mal degree of similarity between
for service in Luxembourg. Distribution & Marketing GmbH,                                                the marks is sufficient for a find-
Salzburg, Austria, was also a party to the proceedings before                                            ing that there is a likelihood of
the Board of Appeal.                                                                                confusion because the goods are
                                                                                identical
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     vary the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal
      of 27 November 2002 in appeal proceedings No R 296/
      2002-3 so as to allow the applicant’s opposition to the             Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Suproco N.V.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
      application for registration of the mark ‘Hai’ filed by
      Distribution & Marketing GmbH on 10 September 1997
      and refuse the application for registration;                                                 (Case T-101/03)
—     in the alternative, refer the case back to the Office for                                    (2003/C 135/53)
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 March 2003 by Suproco
                                                                          N.V., having its registered office in Curação, represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           M.M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-             Distribution & Marketing GmbH
munity trade mark:                                                        —     declare its action to be admissible;
                                                                          —     annul the European Commission decision of 10 January
Community trade mark           The word mark ‘Hai’ for goods                    2003 addressed to the Member States and refusing to
sought:                        and services in Classes 5, 32, 33,               grant a derogation from Council Decision 2001/822/EC
                               35 and 42 (inter alia, vitamin                   in regard to the rules of origin for sugar from the
                               preparations,      fruit      juices,            Netherlands Antilles;
                               alcoholic beverages, catering for
                               guests) (application No 628172)            —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Proprietor of mark or          The applicant, Osotspa Co., Ltd.
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Mark or sign cited in          The Community figurative mark              The applicant is a sugar-processing undertaking established in
opposition:                    No 168427 and the national figu-           the Netherlands Antilles. It imported, inter alia, sugar from a
                               rative mark ‘Shark’ for goods in           cane-sugar supplier in Columbia. It processed this sugar into
                               Class 32 (non-alcoholic drinks,            brown granulated sugar and sugar lumps and re-exported it to
                               syrups and other preparations for          the EC pursuant to Article 3 of Annex II and Appendix 2 to
                               making beverages)                          Annex II to Decision 91/482/EEC (1). On the basis of those
                                                                          rules the applicant’s products were treated as being products
                                                                          of OCT origin.
Decision of the Oppo-          Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
sition Division:               sition
                                                                          Similar rules have also been adopted in Article 4 of Annex III
                                                                          and Appendix 2 ( 2) to Annex III to Decision 2001/822
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal                    (the OCT Decision) ( 3), which replaces Decision 91/482/EEC.
Appeal:                                                                   Article 5(1)(g) of Annex III to the present OCT Decision,


title: Case T-516/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Types)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/48

         Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Types)
   (Case T-516/15)
   (2015/C 354/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze und G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Limbic® Types’ — Application for registration No 12 316 469

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2015 in Case R 1974/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 469 Limbic® Types;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 2 February 1995 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-23/95)

text:
 No C 74/6           1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 3 . 95
 (c) by the Commission delegate in not paying the Somalian           Action brought on 2 February 1995 by the Federal Republic
      part of the invoices for which the Italian part had been       of Germany against the Commission of the European
      paid.                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-23/95 )
 The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance's
 assessment of its claim was wrong and that its dismissal of                                  ( 95/C 74/09 ) •
 the claim was unfounded .
 The Appellant also submits that the Court of First Instance         An action against the Commission of the European
 was wrong in considering that the Appellant had not                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 produced evidence that the Commission's administration              European Communities on 2 February 1995 by the Federal
 failed to operate correctly.                                        Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder
                                                                     (Ministerialrat), Bundesministerium fur Wirtschaft, Bonn,
 Second head of claim — the failure of the Commission to             D-53107.
pay compensation following termination of the contract
The Commission did not give adequate reasoning for its
 decisions and thus infringed the general principle of law laid      The applicant claims that the Court should :
 down in Article 190 of the Treaty.
The Appellant submits that Article 60 of the Financial              — declare void Articles 1 ( 2) and 2 of Commission
 Regulation applicable to the Fifth European Development                 Regulation (EEC ) No 2791/94 of 16 November 1994 on
 Fund and Article 93 ( 1 ) of the General Conditions were                the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the
incorrectly interpreted and applied and that there was an                tariff quota for imports of bananas in 1994 as a result of
incorrect appreciation of the Commission's duty to meet the              tropical storm Debbie (*);
Appellant's claims.
The Appellant also submits that Article 60 of the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs.
abovementioned Financial Regulation imposes on the
Commission a general duty to safeguard the interests of
Community enterprises working in unfavourable financial
environments and that the Commission failed to discharge             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
this duty.
Finally, the Appellant contends that the Court of First              Lack of a legal basis for the way in which the additional
Instance incorrectly assessed the fault committed by the            quantities have been allocated: Article 16 ( 3 ) of Council
Commission which led to the damage existing at the time of
termination of the contract.
                                                                    Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 may support the increase in
                                                                    the import tariff quotas, but not a departure from the
                                                                    method of calculation laid down in Article 19 ( 1 ) of Council
                                                                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 on the common organization
                                                                    of the market in bananas; precisely in the event of an
                                                                    increase in the tariff quota in 'exceptional circumstances',
Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Juzgado          Article 19 (4) of the Council Regulation provides that the
Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional of 18 January          allocation should be made by the method laid down in
      1995 in criminal proceedings against Oscar Weg                Article 19 ( 1 ). If the Commission considers that it is not
                          (Case C-20/95 )                           adequate to compensate for the damage done by the storm,
                           ( 95/C 74/08 )                           it could ask the Council to alter the Regulation. Since the
                                                                    Commission is derogating from a Regulation expressly
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              adopted by the Council, the measures cannot be regarded as
European Communities by order of the Juzgado Central de             implementing measures within the meaning of Article 20 of
lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional ( Central Criminal Court,         the Council Regulation, either. Article 30 of the Council
National High Court) of 18 January 1955 , which was                 Regulation contemplates transitional measures only in
received at the Court Registry on 30 January 1995 , for a           order to overcome difficulties experienced in adapting the
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Oscar            existing national market organization to the new EC banana
Weg.                                                                market rules . Storm damage is not confined to the period of
                                                                    adaptation or transition from one market organization to
                                                                    another.
The questions referred by the Juzgado Central del lo Penal
de la Audiencia Nacional to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling are identical with those in Joined Cases
C-163/94 and C-165/94 I 1 ).                                        (In the alternative) Insufficient grounds (Article 190 of the
                                                                    EC Treaty). There is no indication of the extent of the
(!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994, p . 14 .                            damage. If the damage is lost production in the amount of
                                                                    the additional quota the compensation is more than is
                                                                    necessary, because importers obtain more profit from
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 3 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/7
marketing non-Community bananas than from marketing                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
the same quantity of EC/ACP bananas.                                    Circondariale di Terni by order of 24 January 1995 in the
                                                                        criminal proceedings pending before it against Ivana Rosi
f 1 ) OJ No L 296 , 17 . 11 . 1994 , p. 33 .                                                   ( Case C-26/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/11 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
28 September 1994 in the case Land Rheinland-Pfalz                      European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Terni, of
v.       Alcan Deutschland             GmbH; Joined         Party:
      Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht                    24 January 1995, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                          ( Case C-24/95 )                              proceedings pending before it against Ivana Rosi on the
                             ( 95/C 74/10 )                             following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the                                 whether the definitions of 'waste ' and 'waste destined for
Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court)
                                                                        recovery' laid down in Council Directive 91/156/EEC (*),
of 28 September 1994 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 2 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        Council Directive 91/689/EEC (2 ) and Regulation ( EEC )
case of Land Rheinland-Pfalz v. Alcan Deutschland GmbH;
                                                                        No 259/93 ( 3 ) should at present continue to be understood
                                                                        and interpreted in the light of the previous case-law of the
Joined             party:         Oberbundesanwalt           beim       Court and whether at the same time those two definitions
Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Senior Federal Attorney at the
Federal Administrative Court), on the following                         may in every case be regarded as including all materials,
questions :
                                                                        however residual, derived from production or consumption
                                                                        cycles in a manufacturing or combustion process and, if so,
                                                                        whether those materials as well are to be regarded from the
1 . is the competent authority obliged, by reason of the                point of view of Community rules as being subject to the
      requirement to apply national law in such a way that              system established by the abovementioned directives;
      'the recovery required by Community law is not
      rendered practically impossible and the interests of the
      Community are taken fully into consideration', to
      revoke, in accordance with a final, binding decision of           whether a deactivation process intended merely to render
      the EC Commission ordering recovery, the aid decision             waste harmless may be included among the operations
      in question even if the authority has allowed the                 intended to make a residue re-usable and therefore as such
      preclusive time-limit which exists for that purpose under         falling outside the system laid down by the Community
      national law in the interest of legal certainty to                legislation on waste;
      elapse ?
2 . If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative :
                                                                        whether landfill tipping in hollows or embankmens may be
      is the competent authority obliged, by reason of the              regarded as the recovery of waste capable of being classified
       abovementioned requirement, to revoke, in accordance             as residues not governed by EEC legislation on waste;
      with a final, binding decision of the EC Commission
       ordering recovery, the aid decision in question even if
       the competent authority is responsible for the illegality
       of the aid decision to such a degree that revocation             whether waste incineration may be included among the
       appears to be a breach of good faith towards the                 recovery of materials simply because marketable residues
       recipient ?                                                      are obtained therefrom and may consequently fall outside
                                                                        the system laid down by the Community legislation on
                                                                        waste and in particular outside the incineration rules;
 3 . If the replies to Questions 1 and 2 are in the
       affirmative :
       is the competent authority obliged, by reason of the             whether waste may be classified as a re-usable residue
       abovementioned requirement, to demand, in                        without its characteristics or purpose being defined to that
       accordance with a final, binding decision of the EC              end and may thus fall outside the scope of the EEC
       Commission ordering recovery, the repayment of the aid           legislation on waste;
       which was granted even if such demand is excluded by
       national law because the gain no longer exists and in the
       absence of bad faith on the part of the recipient of the
       aid ?                                                            whether waste which is merely ground without its
                                                                        characteristics being altered in any way may become a
                                                                         residue falling outside the EEC legislation on waste where


title: Case T-291/05: Action brought on 25 July 2005 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/37

         Action brought on 25 July 2005 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-291/05)
   (2005/C 229/77)
   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 25 July 2005 by Mohammed Reza Fardoom, resident in Roodt-sur-Syre (Luxembourg), and Michael Ashbrook, resident in Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decisions of the Head of Unit for ‘Social Dialogue’, adopted on 4 November 2004 and refusing the applicants travel orders, applied for on 9 September 2004, in order to take part in the meeting of 13 September 2004 with a member of the Commission;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants had been invited, as representatives of a trade union organisation, to a meeting held on 13 September 2004 with a member of the Commission. In order to take part in that meeting, the applicants had, beforehand, applied for travel orders. Those applications were not approved by their immediate superior until 41 days later. The authorising officer rejected those applications by reason of that delay.
   The applicants claim that the latter decision should be annulled. In support of their action, they contend that there has been an infringement of Article 24a of the Staff Regulations, of the freedom to belong to a trade union, of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and that the process was arbitrary. In that context, the applicants submit that they lodged their requests within the appropriate time-limit and that they should not be held responsible for the fact that they were approved too late. The applicants also contend that the missions were requested without any expenses and that, accordingly, it was not necessary subsequently to involve the budget of the institution.
   The applicants also allege that there has been an infringement of the principle that reasons must be given and of the duty of care owed by the Commission.


title: Case T-245/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/46

         Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-245/05)
   (2005/C 217/101)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Townson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag, established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 723/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B499 004 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Coloured figurative mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1


title: Case C-406/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/34

         Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-406/07)
   (2007/C 269/58)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic is in breach of

                           (a)

                           its obligations under Articles 56 and 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Articles 40 and 31 of the EEA Agreement, in applying a tax regime for dividends from abroad that is less favourable than the regime for domestic dividends;

                           (b)

                           its obligations under Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in maintaining in force the provisions of the Kodika Forologias Eisodimatos (Income Tax Code) (Law 2238/1994, as last amended by Law 3296/2004), by which foreign partnerships in Greece are taxed more heavily than domestic partnerships;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission considers that the Member States may not tax dividends from abroad at a higher rate than that applicable to domestic dividends.
   The tax exemption provided for by Greek tax legislation is aimed at avoiding the double taxation of company profits distributed to shareholders, but is applied only to domestic dividends.
   The Greek tax legislation accordingly results in discouraging persons subject to full tax obligations in Greece from investing their capital in companies established in another Member State.
   The provisions of the Greek legislation also have a restrictive effect in relation to companies established in another Member State, since it constitutes an obstacle to the centralising of capital in Greece by such companies.
   Since income from capital of non-Greek origin receives less favourable tax treatment than dividends distributed by companies established in Greece, the shares of companies established in other Member States are less attractive to investors resident in Greece than the shares of companies whose seat is in Greece.
   It follows from the above that legislative provisions such as that under scrutiny constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital which, in principle, is prohibited by Article 56 EC.
   In the case of persons who are subject to full tax obligations in Greece and who hold foreign shares which afford them the possibility of exercising a manifest influence on the decisions of the undertaking and determining its activities, it is similarly a restriction on freedom of establishment which is prohibited by Article 43 EC.


title: Case T-168/01: Action brought on 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcome plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 275/17
Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission has misused            The Commission found that these terms and conditions of sale
its discretion in ordering repayment at Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk             were contrary to Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty since they
GmbH’s expense of aid totalling DEM 7 100 136. It argues                 restricted parallel imports and exports to other Member States.
that the Commission did not take account of Gothaer Fahr-                This decision is now contested by the applicant.
zeugwerk GmbH’s contribution to the overall result. It adds
that DEM 3300000 were undeniably used in accordance with
the initial objective, and that the remaining amount of                  In support of its Application, the applicant contests the
DEM 3800336 was determined on the basis of a distribution                applicability of Article 81(1) EC Treaty on the grounds that
ration arbitrarily adopted by the Commission, so that the                the conditions of sale do not constitute an agreement and they
contested decision is contrary to Community law and void.                have no restrictive object or effect. The applicant further claims
                                                                         that the conditions of sale compensate for a market irregularity
                                                                         caused by the setting of prices by the Spanish authorities. In
                                                                         the alternative, the applicant claims the conditions of sale are
                                                                         eligible for an exemption under Article 81(3) EC Treaty.
Action brought on 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcome plc
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l. against
                        (Case T-168/01)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                        (2001/C 275/32)                                                           (Case T-180/01)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                (2001/C 275/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcome                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
plc, having its registered office in Middlesex (UK), represented         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
by I.S. Forrester Q.C. and A.P. Schulz of White & Case                   European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l.,
Brussels, F. Depoortere, T. Louko and I. Vandenborre of                  represented by Walter Masucci, lawyer.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Brussels, and
S. Martinez Lage of Martinez Lage & Associados                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Communities of 6 June 2001 C(2001)1274;
—      annul the Commission decision of 8 May 2001;                      —     in the alternative, annul in part the contested decision
                                                                               and reduce, in proportion with the actual investments
—      take such other or further steps as justice may require;                made, the financial contribution allocated to Euroagri
                                                                               s.r.l. by the Commission’s decision of 3 December 1992;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                               pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant notified its new terms and conditions of sale to
the Commission pursuant to Regulation 17/62. The new terms               By this application, the applicant company seeks the annul-
and conditions of sale of the applicant consisted of two                 ment of the decision of the Commission of the European
different pricing systems for its pharmaceutical products. The           Communities of 6 June 2001 C(2001)1274 cancelling the
first one was used for products to be sold in Spain and financed         contribution allocated to the applicant itself by decision
by the Spanish Social Security system. In this case the prices           C(92)3124 of 3 December 1992, pursuant to Council Regu-
were, according to the applicant, all set by the Spanish                 lation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down
authorities at a low level. The second system applied to                 provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
products to be sold outside the scope of the Spanish price               regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (1) in the context of
setting system by wholesalers authorised according to Spanish            project No 92. IT.06.069 entitled ‘Pilot demonstration project
Law. In the latter system, the prices were set by the applicant.         for the use of new “Endovena” technology on fruit trees’.


title: Case T-170/12: Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Beyond Retro v OHIM — S&K Garments (BEYOND VINTAGE)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/23

         Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Beyond Retro v OHIM — S&K Garments (BEYOND VINTAGE)
   (Case T-170/12)
   2012/C 194/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Beyond Retro Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S&K Garments, Inc. (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2012 joined cases R 493/2011-4 and R 548/2011-4; and

               —

               Order the Office and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: International Registration of the word mark ‘BEYOND VINTAGE’, for goods and services in classes 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No W 994046

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5629035 of the word mark ‘BEYOND RETRO’, for goods and services in classes 25 AND 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the applicant’s appeal in case R 548/2011-4 and annulled the decision of the opposition division in case R 493/2011-4

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


title: Case C-423/07: Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/21

         Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-423/07)
   (2007/C 297/35)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Kukovec, agent and M. Canal Fontcuberta, abogada)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not including, in the works to be awarded by concession in the concession notice and in the tendering specifications relating to the award of a public concession for the construction, maintenance and operation of the motorway links to Segovia and Ávila, and for the maintenance and operation of the Villalba-Adanero section of the same motorway, works which were subsequently awarded, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 11(3), (6), (7), (11) and (12) of Directive 93/37/EEC (1), and under the principles of the EC Treaty, in particular the principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Royal Decree 1724/99 of 5 November the Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport awarded a public works concession for the construction, maintenance and operation of the following sections of toll motorway: the A-6 toll motorway link to Segovia, and the A-6 toll motorway link to Ávila, and for the maintenance and operation from 2018 of the Villalba-Adanero section of the A-6 toll motorway. In the context of awarding that concession, there were awarded many other works of which notice had not been given, to a value greater than the total value of the published works, and which were in part outside the geographical area of the concession.
   First, the Commission claims that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 3 of Directive 93/37 and consequently Article 11(3), (6), (7), (11) and (12) of the same directive by awarding works without prior public notice. The Commission states that all the works awarded should have been published in the Official Journal in accordance with the provisions of Directive 93/37.
   Secondly, the Commission considers that there is no information either in the notice or in the tendering specifications which would enable tenderers to bid for works on sections other than the A-6 toll motorway links to Ávila and Segovia such as those which were subsequently awarded. The Commission considers therefore that the Spanish authorities have infringed the principle of equality of treatment by accepting a tender which manifestly did not comply with the essential conditions set out in the published notice and tendering specifications.

      (1)  Council Directive of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).


title: Case C-221/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on  15 May 2006  — Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten und Gemeindebetriebe Frohnleiten GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2006 — Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten und Gemeindebetriebe Frohnleiten GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-221/06)
   (2006/C 178/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten und Gemeindebetriebe Frohnleiten GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   Question referred
   Do Articles 10 EC, 12 EC, 23 EC, 25 EC, 49 EC or 90 EC preclude a national tax provision which makes the deposit of waste at a waste disposal site subject to a tax (Altlastenbeitrag; disused hazardous site levy), but provides for exemption from that tax for the deposit of waste which demonstrably derives from the safeguarding or rehabilitation of contaminated sites (potentially hazardous sites or disused hazardous sites) if the sites (potentially hazardous sites or disused hazardous sites) are entered in official registers provided for by law (Verdachtsflächenkataster; register of potentially hazardous sites, or Altlastenatlas; disused hazardous sites register), and only sites in Austria may be entered in those registers, with the result that the tax exemption is also possible only in respect of the deposit of waste which originates from potentially hazardous sites or disused hazardous sites located in Austria?


title: Case C-1/02 SA: Application brought on 22 August 2002 by Antippas for leave to attach assets held by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    —    lift the immunity enjoyed by the Commission since the
                                                                                requested attachment does not in any way interfere with
                         of 21 March 2002                                        the independence and functioning of the Communities;
in Case C-430/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   —    declare that the Commission’s accounting officer incor-
the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monika                            rectly declared that the Commission has no existing or
              Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (1)                               contingent debts towards the Democratic Republic of the
                                                                                Congo or the Banque Nationale du Congo.
     (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                          (2002/C 247/02)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                            Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that Court of
In Case C-430/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                    11 February 2002 in the appeal by Dr Manfred Hückel
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna
Higher Civil Court) (Austria), for a preliminary ruling in
proceedings pending before that court between Monika                                        (Cases C-242/02 and C-243/02)
Herbstrith and the Republic of Austria on whether the failure
to appoint to a post a candidate with the required professional
qualifications infringes a provision of Community law, and on                                       (2002/C 247/04)
the conditions under which a Member State may incur liability
for damage suffered by individuals as a result of infringements
of Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order              European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
on 21 March 2002, in which it ruled:                                        tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber for
                                                                            Salzburg) of 11 February 2002, received at the Court Registry
The request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of              on 3 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal by
Justice of the European Communities by the Landesgericht für                Dr Manfred Hückel on the following questions:
Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by decision of 12 October 2001, is
inadmissible.                                                               1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
                                                                                18 December 1978 (1) on the approximation of the
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                       laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                                presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
                                                                                the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
                                                                                Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
                                                                                20 March 2000 — OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), under which
                                                                                — subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
                                                                                mineral waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional
Application brought on 22 August 2002 by Antippas for                            uses — the labelling and methods used may not attribute
leave to attach assets held by the Commission of the                             to any foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or
                     European Communities                                        curing a human disease, or suggest that it possesses such
                                                                                properties, preclude national legislation which makes it
                         (Case C-1/02 SA)                                        an offence when marketing foodstuffs:
                          (2002/C 247/03)                                        (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
                                                                                in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
                                                                                inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
                                                                                tain health, or to create the impression of any such
An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
                                                                                effect;
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on on
22 August 2002 by Antippas, represented by Mario Spandre,                        (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
lawyer.                                                                                doctors or medical experts’ reports;


title: Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Laurens Cerdijn against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-135/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97             EN                     Official Journal- of the European Communities                                No C 228/ 17
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                               represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Case T-16/97 (').
                                                                           — annul the Commission's decision of 12 July 1996
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                consideration to the possible application of
                                                                                Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                           — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission 's
                                                                                decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
Action brought on 25 April 1997 by Iosif Dascalu against                         rejecting the applicant's complaint,
         the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-133/97)                                 — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                             ( 97/C 228/38 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                           Case T-16/97 ( ! ).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 1997
by Iosif Dascalu, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Jose Manuel Pinto
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Teixeira against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996                                                      ( Case T-136/97 )
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                                       97/C 228 /40 )
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                              (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                    An action against the Commission of the European
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                                   Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
                                                                            by Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira, residing at Sarajevo
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                                ( Bosnia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels
                                                                            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Case T-16/97 (»).
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                consideration to the possible application of
                                                                                Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                            — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                                decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Laurens Cerdijn                               rejecting the applicant's complaint,
    against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-135/97 )                                — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                               ( 97/C 228/39 )                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                             Case T-16/97 (»).
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                           (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
 Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 by Laurens Cerdijn, residing at Hofstade ( Belgium ),


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2002 in Case T-302/01 R: Gerhard Birkhoff v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Dependent child allowance — Suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — None)

text:
C 191/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.8.2002
Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the Bar of                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
England and Wales — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                                  INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung: Registrar, has made an order in                                         of 7 May 2002
which it:
                                                                            in Case T-306/01 R Abdirisak Aden and Others v Council
1.    Dismisses the application.                                            of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs, incurred both in
      these proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief in        (Proceedings for interim measures — Common foreign
      Cases T-18/01 R and T-18/01 R III, and pay the costs                  and security policy — Sanctions against the Taliban of
      incurred by the Commission in these proceedings and in the                    Afghanistan — Freezing of funds — Urgency)
      proceedings for interim relief in Case T-18/01 R.
                                                                                (2002/C 191/46)
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.                                                                     (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                            In Case T-306/01 R: Abdirisak Aden, resident in Spånga
                                                                            (Sweden), Abdulaziz Ali, resident in Järfälla (Sweden), Ahmed
                                                                            Yusuf, resident in Spånga, Al Barakaat International Foun-
                                                                            dation, established in Spånga, represented by L. Silbersky and
                                                                            T. Olsson, lawyers, against Council of the European Union
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and I. Rådestad) and Commission of
                              INSTANCE                                      the European Communities (Agents: A. Van Solinge and
                                                                            J. Enegren) — application for suspension of the implemen-
                       of 19 February 2002                                  tation of Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March
                                                                            2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to
                                                                            Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the
in Case T-302/01 R: Gerhard Birkhoff v Commission of                        freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the
                  the European Communities                                  Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/
                                                                            2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2199/2001 of 12 November 2001 amending, for the
(Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Dependent child                 fourth time, Regulation No 467/2001 (OJ 2001 L 295, p. 16)
allowance — Suspension of operation of a measure —                          in so far as they apply to the applicants, until there has been a
                         Urgency — None)                                    ruling on the substance — the President of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance has made an order on 7 May 2002, the operative part
                          (2002/C 191/45)                                   of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-302/01 R: Gerhard Birkhoff, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Weitnau (Germany), represented by V. Salvatore, lawyer, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                  Action brought on 9 May 2002 by Villiger Söhne GmbH
and A. Dal Ferro) — application for suspension of operation                          against the Council of the European Union
of the Commission’s decision of 26 September 2001 rejecting
the complaint lodged by the applicant, and of the decision of
4 July 2001 by which the Commission suspended payment to                                             (Case T-154/02)
the applicant of the dependent child allowance in favour of his
daughter — the President of the Court of First Instance made                                         (2002/C 191/47)
an order on 19 September 2002, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                            Communities on 9 May 2002 by Villiger Söhne GmbH,
                                                                            Waldshut-Tiengen (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur,
                                                                            lawyer.


title: Case C-120/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 131/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
       27 February 1998 which amended Directive 91/271/                   Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of
       EEC with respect specifically to certain requirements              the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
       established in Annex I thereto;                                                              Luxembourg
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                              (Case C-120/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
In order for Article 3(1) of the directive to be properly                 ties on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
implemented, collecting systems must exist for urban waste                Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and
water which enters ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of                Joelle Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Article 5(1) of the directive. Also, in order for Article 5(2) to         Luxembourg.
be properly implemented, more stringent secondary treatment
is required for urban waste water before its discharge into
‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive — by 31 December 1998 at the latest for agglomer-
ations with a population equivalent (‘p.e.’) of more than                 —     declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
10 000.                                                                         regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                                order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
                                                                                EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
The Bay of Elefsina was classified as a ‘sensitive area’ by Joint               for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
Ministerial Decision 19661/1982 of 2 August 1999. It is not                     to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
disputed that the overall population of the area of Thriasio                    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Pedio exceeds 10 000 inhabitants. It is also accepted that the                  directive;
area’s waste water is discharged into the Bay of Elefsina, which
has been defined as a ‘sensitive area’ since 1999.                        —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Consequently, the Greek authorities were obliged, under
Article 3(1) of the directive, to ensure that there was a collecting      Pleas in law and main arguments
system for that area’s urban waste water by 31 December 1998
at the latest. Nevertheless, as the letter of 8 October 2001              The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
from the Greek Permanent Representation to the European                   2000 but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted
Union also makes clear, such a system does not exist today.               the measures required.
Article 5(2) of the directive obliges the Member States, by               (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.
31 December 1998 at the latest, to subject urban waste water
entering collecting systems which is from agglomerations with
a p.e. exceeding 10 000 to more stringent secondary treatment
before its discharge into sensitive areas.
It is not in dispute that today urban waste water from the area           Action brought on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of
of Thriasio Pedio is discharged without treatment into an area            the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
which has been classified as ‘sensitive’ by the joint ministerial                                   Luxembourg
decision of 2 August 1999, in breach of Article 5(2) of the
directive.                                                                                (Case C-121/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/19)
The Greek authorities do not dispute the absence of a treatment
system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio.
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
(2) OJ L 67 of 7.3.1998, p. 29.                                           ties on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Mikko Huttunen and Hendrik
                                                                          van Lier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg.