title: Case T-20/17: Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Hungary v European Commission

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/36

         Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-20/17)
   (2017/C 078/50)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and E.Zs. Tóth)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2016) 6929 final of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the part of the contested decision which classifies the version of the legislation following the amendment of 2015 as unlawful State aid;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three plea(s) in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the tax on advertisement was erroneously classified as State aid.
               The contested decision is unlawful because the Commission erroneously classifies the Hungarian legislation in question as State aid; neither the system of progressive rates in bands, with bands and rates based on objective criteria, nor the reduction in the tax base for failing undertakings, or the applicability of the new system of rates to previous tax years constitute State aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons
               The Commission failed to fulfill its obligation to state reasons in classifying as unlawful State aid the legislation on tax on advertisement both in the version amended in 2014 and in the version amended in 2015 without having examined the substantive difference between the two laws. The contested decision did not indicate which legislative exemption allowed an undertaking to enjoy a financial advantage compared with another undertaking in the same position; it did not explain why the progressive rate system was not part of the reference system; it did not indicate what category of undertaking was placed at an exclusive advantage by the system of progressive tax rates in bands and did not indicate why it did not consider the demonstration by the Hungarian authorities of the costs arising for taxable persons and for the tax authorities to be satisfactory.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging abuse of powers
               The Commission misused the power granted in the area of review of State aid in adopting the contested decision, that is when it prohibited as unlawful State aid the collection of taxes on the basis of tax legislation falling exclusively within the competence of the Member States, disregarding the fact that there is no case-law whatsoever of either the Court of Justice or the General Court on the question of whether or not the tax system in question can be classified as State aid.


title: Case T-696/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Bodegas Vega Sicilia v EUIPO (TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark for wine with geographical indications — Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Bodegas Vega Sicilia v EUIPO (TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA)
   (Case T-696/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark for wine with geographical indications - Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 086/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Vega Sicilia, SA (Valbuena de Duero, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2015 (Case R 285/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bodegas Vega Sicilia, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-185/05: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-185/05) (1)

   (2006/C 249/20)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.


title: Case T-282/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Fédération internationale des logis v OHIM (Green convex square) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative trade mark representing a green convex square — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Fédération internationale des logis v OHIM (Green convex square)
   (Case T-282/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative trade mark representing a green convex square - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 30/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération internationale des logis (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 (Case R 1511/2008-1) concerning an application for registration a green convex square as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Fédération internationale des logis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case F-75/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 June 2016 — Wille and Skovsboell v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 June 2016 — Wille and Skovsboell v Commission
   (Case F-75/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposals concerning additional pensionable years - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action - Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 410/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Daniel Wille (Mouscron, Belgium) and Bo Skovsboell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, subsequently J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and, lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Baquero Cruz and D. Martin, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, subsequently G. Gattinara, Agent and, lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision calculating the amount of the pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of the Commission to be credited and the rejection of the complaints brought by the applicants.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Daniel Wille and Mr Bo Skovsboell shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22/9/2012, p. 41.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/62

         Action brought on 18 February 2004 by Christos Gogos against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-66/04)
   (2004/C 94/156)
   Language of the Case: Greek
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 February 2004 by Christos Gogos, resident in Waterloo, Belgium, represented by Kharis Tagaras, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decisions, namely the decision to classify him in Grade A 7 following his success in internal competition COM//A/17/96 and the Commission's rejection dated 24 November 2003 of the his complaint under No R/323/03;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 1997 the applicant, who is a Commission official, took part in an internal competition for promotion from Category B to Category A, but was unsuccessful in the oral test. In an action brought before the Court of First Instance (1)the decision rejecting him was annulled; he was invited to take part in a new written test, but failed again. He brought fresh proceedings against this second rejection (2). The parties settled these proceedings on the basis that the applicant would be invited to a fresh (third) oral test; he was successful in that test and was entered on the reserve list. The applicant submitted an application for a vacant Category A post and was selected. On 31 March 2003 he was informed that his classification upon appointment was in Grade A 7.
   The applicant challenges that classification, submitting that he should have been classified in Grade A 6. He pleads first of all that, if Article 233 EC, the principles of equal treatment, equity and proper administration and the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects are applied correctly, he has to be granted the rights, of whatever nature, which he would have had if he had been entered on the competition reserve list from the beginning, without his two prior actions. He further pleads that both the Commission decision of September 1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification in step, as amended in 1996 in consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-17/95 (3), and the Commission's administrative guide on the same subject require his initial classification in Grade A 6.

      (1)  Case T-95/98, OJ No C 258, 15.8.1998, p. 38.

      (2)  Case T-97/01, OJ No C 186, 30.6.2001, p. 17.

      (3)  Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 1995 in Alexopoulou v Commission, OJ No C 315, 25.11.1995, p. 14.


title: Case T-297/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ACEA v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Existing aid or new aid — Article 87(3)(c) EC)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ACEA v Commission
   (Case T-297/02) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Existing aid or new aid - Article 87(3)(c) EC)
   2009/C 180/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ACEA SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Giardina, L. Radicati di Brozolo and V. Puca, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: ACSM Como SpA (Como, Italy) (represented by L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, lawyers) and AEM — Azienda Energetica Metropolitana Torino SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by M. Merola and L. Radicati di Brozolo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it relates to the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti loans.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounde.

               3.

               Orders ACEA SpA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               Orders ACSM Como SpA and AEM — Azienda Energetica Metropolitana Torino SpA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 November 1998 in Case T-97/94: N v. Commission of the European Communities (Former officials - Staff report - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 48/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
2. Declares that that sum will bear interest at an annual               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    rate of 8 % with effect from the date of this judgment                              of 30 November 1998
    and until due payment.
                                                                   in Case T-97/94: N v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
3. Orders the Parliament to pay its own costs and the              (Former officials Ð Staff report Ð Legal interest in
    costs of the applicant.                                                   bringing proceedings Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/52)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-97/94: N, a former official of the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                   represented by Georges A. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission
                    of 15 December 1998                            of the European Communities (Agent: Lucio Gussetti) Ð
in Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen v. Commission of              application, first, for annulment of the applicant's staff
                the European Communities (1)                       report, prepared by the Commission, for the period from
                                                                   1 July 1989 to 30 June 1991 and, second, for
(Officials Ð Transfer of pension rights Ð Article 11(2) of         compensation for the material and non-material damage
            Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)                   allegedly suffered as a result of that report Ð the Court of
                                                                   First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke,
                        (1999/C 48/51)                             President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H.
                                                                   Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 November 1998, the
                                                                   operative part of which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2          (1) OJ C 120, 30.4.1994.
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the
Commission's decision of 16 October 1996 providing that
the time-limit for transferring pension rights is to be
calculated separately for each transfer and refusing the
applicant's request for aggregation of transfers from the               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Andels-Pensionsforening       and   the    Juristernes    og                            of 25 November 1998
ékonomernes Pensionskasse Ð the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,            in Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser v. Commission of the
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                                  European Communities (1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 1998, in
                                                                   (Officials Ð Time-limits for bringing proceedings Ð
which it:
                                                                                Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/53)
1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 16 October 1996
    providing that the time-limit for transferring pension                        (Language of the case: French)
    rights is to be calculated separately for each transfer
    and refusing the applicant's request for aggregation of
    transfers from the Andels-Pensionsforening and the             In Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser, an official of the
    Juristernes og ékonomernes Pensionskasse.                      Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Asselscheuer (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
                                                                   by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                         service in Luxembourg at 44 Rue du Grunewald,
                                                                   Asselscheuer,     v.    Commission      of   the   European
                                                                   Communities (Agent: Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                          application for annulment of the refusal of the applicant's
                                                                   request to be re-assigned to the post held by him prior to
                                                                   the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings brought
                                                                   against him Ð the Court of First Instance (First


title: Appeal brought on 17 September 1998 by Proderec - Formação e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos ACE against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-72/97 between Proderec - Formação e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos ACE and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-341/98 P)

text:
7.11.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 340/11
In addition to the infringement of those basic provisions,           The appellant claims that the Court should:
the Council has breached the principle of protection of
legitimate expectations.
                                                                     Ð set aside the judgment delivered in Case T-27/97;
Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty:
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
    It is indisputable that even acts of general application,
    such as regulations, must provide a sufficient
    statement of the reasons on which they are based,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    especially with regard to provisions directly
    concerning the interests of separate recognisable
    classes of traders (such as, in this case, Italian beet          Breach of Community law by the Court of First Instance
    growers).                                                        in its assessment of the pleas in law and arguments relied
                                                                     on in Case T-72/97 (1).
    Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 states no reasons for
    fixing the derived intervention price for five other
                                                                     (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997, p. 16.
    Member States but not for Italy. Nor are any reasons
    provided in Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 in respect of
    the fixing of the intervention price.
Ð Breach of the principle of equal treatment:
    Whilst Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 failed            Action brought on 18 September 1998 by Commission of
    to fix the derived intervention price for white sugar            the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
    for Italy, it confirmed that price for the United                                         Luxembourg
    Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Spain.
                                                                                (Case C-342/98)
    Albeit unaware of the reasons which led to Italy's                                       (98/C 340/19)
    being denied a derived intervention price and of the
    reasons for which that price was confirmed for the
    other Member States, the Italian Government must
                                                                     An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
    claim that the Council has breached the principle of
                                                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    equality and afforded it unequal treatment.
                                                                     Communities on 18 September 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities, represented by GeÂrard
(1) OJ L 185 of 30.6.1998, p. 3.                                     Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
(2) OJ L 185 of 30.6.1998, p. 1.
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
(3) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.
                                                                     Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                     that the Court should:
Appeal brought on 17 September 1998 by Proderec Ð
FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos ACE                 Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the                     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Communities in Case T-72/97 between Proderec                     Commission Directive 95/33/EC of 10 July 1995,
Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos                        amending Council Directive 82/471/EEC concerning
  ACE and the Commission of the European Communities                      certain products used in animal nutrition (1),
                      (Case C-341/98 P)                                   Commission Directive 95/44/EC of 26 July 1995
                                                                          establishing the conditions under which certain
                        (98/C 340/18)
                                                                          harmful organisms, plants, plant products and other
                                                                          objects listed in Annexes I to V to Council Directive
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998                  77/93/EEC may be introduced into or moved within
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                   the Community for trial or scientific purposes or for
the European Communities in Case T-72/97 between                          work on varietal selections (2) and Commission
Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                       Directive 96/78/EC of 6 December 1996 amending
Humanos ACE and the Commission of the European                            certain Annexes to Council Directive 77/93/EEC on
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                    protective measures against the introduction into the
the European Communities on 17 September 1998 by                          Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant
Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                       products and against their spread within the
Humanos ACE, represented by Manuel Rodrigues, of the                      Community (3), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
care of Luísa Maria Miranda Sousa Pires, 4a rue Jean                      Directive 95/33/EC, Article 4 of Directive 95/44/EC
JaureÁs.                                                                  and Article 2 of Directive 96/78/EC;


title: Case C-436/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 22 September 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Davide Cazzorla

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 22 September 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Davide Cazzorla
   (Case C-436/14)
   (2014/C 448/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Party to the main proceedings

   Davide Cazzorla

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case C-379/16 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public service contracts — Software development and maintenance services — Misinterpretation of the arguments and distortion of the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the General Court)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/3

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-379/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public service contracts - Software development and maintenance services - Misinterpretation of the arguments and distortion of the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the General Court))
   (2017/C 086/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, dikigoroi)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: N. Bambara, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-103/07: Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Fratex Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — USA Track & Field (TRACK & FIELD USA)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/25

         Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Fratex Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — USA Track & Field (TRACK & FIELD USA)
   (Case T-103/07)
   (2007/C 140/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Fratex Indústria e Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: USA Track & Field, Inc.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of 18 January 2007 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case No R. 1061/2005-4);

               —

               an order that OHIM should, in consequence, refuse to register Community trade mark No 168088 in respect of goods in Class 25;

               —

               an order that OHIM should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: USA Track & Field, Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: Mixed mark USA TRACK & FIELD

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: TRACK & FIELD

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal brought by USA Track & Field, Inc.

      Pleas in law: The applicant takes the view that the contested decision is contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1), since there exists the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers faced with the possible coexistence on the market of the two signs at issue, on account of the coincidence of the term TRACK & FIELD. As a matter of fact, the goods covered by the marks at issue are identical and, even if there is no likelihood of confusion in the strict sense, there is still the likelihood of risk of confusion in the form of association with the earlier trade mark, which is included in the former [likelihood of confusion] in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) in fine of that regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)


title: Case C-578/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by Mansour Dairek Attoumi against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-278/14 Dairek Attoumi v OHIM-Diesel

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/3

         Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by Mansour Dairek Attoumi against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-278/14 Dairek Attoumi v OHIM-Diesel

   (Case C-578/15 P)
   (2016/C 251/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Mansour Dairek Attoumi (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Diesel, S.P.A.
   By order of 26 May 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Mansour Dairek Attoumi to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 16 January 1996 in the criminal case of Procurateur du Roi, civil party: the Belgian State, in the persons of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications and Public Undertakings and the Minister for Scientific Policy v. Paul Denuit (Case C-14/96)

text:
No C 64/ 10 .            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2 . 3 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat du                    large, but variable, proportion of the material which it
Royaume de Belgique by judgment of that court of                               broadcasts is of non-European origin if the national
4 December 1995 in the case of Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian                       court also finds that the body in question is based in the
          State in the person of the Finance Minister                          territory of the Member State in question and that the
                              Case C-13 /96 )                                  actual activities of programme management,
                                                                               composition and assembly are carried out there ?
                              ( 96/C 64/21
                                                                         2 . Assuming that broadcasts emanating from a television
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         broadcaster authorized by a Member State are not to be
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat                         regarded as broadcasts transmitted by a broadcaster
( Council of State ) of the Kingdom of Belgium of 4 December                   under the jurisdiction of a Member State within the
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                             meaning of Directive 89/552/EEC, is another Member
19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bic                  State entitled — and, if so, on what conditions , regard
Benelux SA against Belgian State in the person of the Finance                  being had in particular to Article 59 et seq. of the Treaty
Minister on the following question :                                           — to prohibit or restrict their retransmission in a
                                                                               particular area ?
'Do the obligation to affix a particular distinctive sign on
products subject to a tax payable by reason of the ecological            3 . Should Article 2 of that Directive be interpreted as
damage they are deemed to cause, prior to the release of such                  meaning that, if a television broadcaster comes under
products on to the market, and the obligation to affix                         the jurisdiction of a Member State, another Member
another distinctive sign on products of the same type if they                  State is not entitled to oppose the retransmission in its
are exempt from that tax by virtue of diplomatic privilege,                    territory of television broadcasts transmitted by that
constitute " technical specifications " within the meaning of                  broadcaster even in the event that the rules laid down in
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 83/ 189/EEC of 28 March                   Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive are not complied
1983 ( 1 ) laying down a procedure for the provision of                        with ?
information in the field of technical standards and
regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/ 182/EEC                 ( 1 ) OJ No L 298 , p . 23 .
of 22 March 1988 ( 2 ), or " technical regulations " within the
meaning of Article 1 ( 5 ) of that Directive ?'
(') OJ No L 109 , p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 81 , p . 75 .
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                         Hamburg by order of that court of 1 December 1995 in the
                                                                         case of Dr Kalliope Schoning-Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und
                                                                                Hansestadt Hamburg
                                                                                ( Case C-15/96 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                                                96 /C 64/23 )
Premiere Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
16 January 1996 in the criminal case of Procurateur du Roi,              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
civil party: the Belgian State, in the persons of the Deputy             European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht
Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications and                   ( Labour Court ) Hamburg — Third Chamber — of
Public Undertakings and the Minister for Scientific Policy v.            1 December 1995 , received at the Court Registry on
                                Paul Denuit                              19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr
                            ( Case C-14/96 )                             Kalliope Schoning-Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und
                                                                         Hansestadt Hamburg on the following questions :
                               ( 96/C 64/22 )
                                                                          1 . is there an infringement of Article 48 of the EC Treaty
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         and Article 7 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                            No 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for
Premiere Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,                      workers within the Community ( J ) where a collective
Brussels ) of 16 January 1996 , received at the Court Registry                 agreement for the public service provides for promotion
on 19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                  on grounds of seniority after eight years' service only in a
case of Procurateur du Roi, civil party: the Belgian State, in                 particular salary bracket provided for by the collective
the persons of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister                      wage agreement in force for all employees in the public
for Communications and Public Undertakings and the                             service of the Federal Republic of Germany ('the BAT')
Minister for Scientific Policy v. Paul Denuit on the following                 and therefore does not take account of comparable
questions :                                                                    activities carried out in the public service of another
                                                                               Member State of the EC ?
 1 . What conditions have to be met for a television
      broadcaster to be regarded as coming under the                     2 . If the reply to question 1 is in the affirmative :
      jurisdiction of a Member State within the meaning of
      Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (') of                    does Article 48 together with Regulation ( EEC )
       3 October 1989 ? To what extent is it relevant that a                   No 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for


title: Case C-366/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Abbott Spa v Ministero della Salute and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Abbott Spa v Ministero della Salute and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   (Case C-366/07)
   (2007/C 247/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abbott Spa

      Defendants: Ministero della Salute and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case T-164/17: Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/55

         Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)
   (Case T-164/17)
   (2017/C 144/75)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia), Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pink Lady America (Yakima, Washington, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WILD PINK’ — Application for registration No 11 701 216

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 87/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicants before the Office’s Fourth Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No. 207/2009 and the rights of defense;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU,

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or of Article 8(5) of Regulation No. 207/2009.


title: Case T-153/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/44

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission
   (Case T-153/13) (1)

   2014/C 45/80
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case C-33/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Actions for annulment — Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Unlawful and incompatible aid — Obligation to recover — European Commission decision not to extend the recovery obligation to the successor of the aid beneficiary — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for damages and for the recovery of aid before the national courts — Locus standi — Appellant not individually concerned)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest v European Commission
   (Case C-33/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Actions for annulment - Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Unlawful and incompatible aid - Obligation to recover - European Commission decision not to extend the recovery obligation to the successor of the aid beneficiary - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action for damages and for the recovery of aid before the national courts - Locus standi - Appellant not individually concerned))
   (2015/C 371/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the Order of the General Court of the European Union in Mory and Others v Commission (T-545/12, EU:T:2013:607);

               2)

               Dismisses as inadmissible the action for annulment brought by Mory SA, Mory Team and Superga Invest against Decision C(2012) 2401 final of the Commission of 4 April 2012 concerning the takeover of assets of the Sernam group as part of its composition with creditors;

               3)

               Orders Mory SA, Mory Team, Superga Invest and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating both to the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Daniel Callebaut against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-97/97)

text:
No C 166/26            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   31 . 5 . 97
by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                               expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
— annul the Commission's decision of 21 June 1996                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
    ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                 Case T- 16/97 (').
                                                                    (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                    Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Daniel Callebaut
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-97/97)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                                         ( 97/C 166/56 )
Case T-16/97 H.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                    by Daniel Callebaut, residing at Mondorf-les-Bains
                                                                    ( Luxembourg ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Leon Rappe against                Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
        the Commission of the European Communities                  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
                         (Case T-96/97)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          97/C 166/55
                                                                    — annul the Commission 's decision of 20 June 1996
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                         consideration to the possible application of Article 31
An action against the Commission of the European                         ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
by Leon Rappe, residing at Hoegaarden ( Belgium),                        adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an              expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                          — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                  Case T- 16/97 ( M.
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
    (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                  H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .


title: Case T-450/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces that have a grid structure) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Cube with surfaces having a grid structure — Absolute grounds for refusal — First sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves — Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods — Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces that have a grid structure)
      (Case T-450/09) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Absolute grounds for refusal - First sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves - Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods - Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Absence of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
      (2015/C 016/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Seven Towns Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by M. Edenborough QC, and B. Cookson, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1526/2008-2) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Seven Towns Ltd.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-155/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — George Karim v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 18 — Taking back an asylum seeker whose application is being examined — Article 19 — Cessation of responsibility — Absence from the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months — New procedure for determining the Member State responsible — Article 27 — Remedy — Extent of judicial review)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/14

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — George Karim v Migrationsverket
   (Case C-155/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 18 - Taking back an asylum seeker whose application is being examined - Article 19 - Cessation of responsibility - Absence from the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months - New procedure for determining the Member State responsible - Article 27 - Remedy - Extent of judicial review))
   (2016/C 296/18)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: George Karim

      Defendant: Migrationsverket

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted to the effect that that provision, in particular its second subparagraph, is applicable to a third-country national who, after having made a first asylum application in a Member State, provides evidence that he left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months before making a new asylum application in another Member State.

               2.

               Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, must be interpreted to the effect that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an asylum applicant may, in an action challenging a transfer decision made in respect of him, invoke an infringement of the rule set out in the second subparagraph of Article 19(2) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case C-568/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen (Germany) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen (Germany) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool
   (Case C-568/16)
   (2017/C 022/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Nürtingen

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Faiz Rasool, Rasool Entertainment GmbH, Staatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must point (o) of Article 3 of the Directive on payment services in the internal market (Directive 2007/64/EC) (1) be interpreted as meaning that the possibility to withdraw cash in an officially authorised gaming arcade by means of a debit card and PIN from a cash terminal, also functioning as a change machine, where the bank- and account-related processing is carried out by an external service provider (‘network provider’) and the cash is dispensed to the customer only when the network provider, after checking whether funds are available, sends an authorisation code to the terminal, whereas the arcade operator merely loads the multi-functional change machine with cash and receives a credit from the bank whose customer withdrew cash corresponding to the amount withdrawn, constitutes an activity within the meaning of point (o) of Article 3 of the Directive and is consequently not subject to authorisation?

               2.

               If the activity described in Question 1 is not considered to constitute an activity within the meaning of point (o) of Article 3:
               Must point (e) of Article 3 of Directive 2007/64/EC be interpreted as meaning that the possibility described in Question 1 to withdraw cash using a PIN constitutes an activity within the meaning of this provision if, together with the cash withdrawal, a voucher to the value of EUR 20 is generated for encashment with the arcade supervisor in order to have the supervisor feed coins into a gaming machine?

         If the activity described in Questions 1 and 2 is not considered to constitute an activity excluded from the scope of the Directive on the basis of points (o) and/or (e) of Article 3:

               3a.

               Must paragraph 2 in the Annex to Directive 2007/64/EC be interpreted as meaning that the activity of arcade operator described in Questions 1 and 2 constitutes a payment service subject to authorisation notwithstanding the fact that the arcade operator does not operate any account of the customer withdrawing cash?

               3b.

               Must point (3) of Article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC be interpreted as meaning that the activity of arcade operator described in Questions 1 and 2 constitutes a payment service within the meaning of that provision where the arcade operator provides this service free of charge?

         If the Court considers the activity outlined to constitute a payment service subject to authorisation:

               4.

               Must EU law and the Directive on payment services in the internal market be interpreted as precluding criminal penalties for the operation of a cash terminal in the circumstances of the present case if cash terminals of the same kind were or are operated without authorisation in numerous officially authorised gaming arcades and in officially authorised and, in part, publicly operated casinos and the competent authorisation and supervisory authority does not raise any objections?

         If the answer to Question 4 is also in the negative:

               5.

               Must the Directive on payment services and the EU-law principles of legal certainty and legal clarity and Article 17 of the Charter be interpreted as precluding, in the circumstances of the present case, an administrative and judicial practice ordering such amounts to be surrendered to the public purse (‘confiscation’) as have been received by the operator of the gaming arcade — as a result of a service effected by the network provider — from bank customers, who by means of debit card and PIN withdrew the cash loaded by the operator and/or the vouchers to play the gaming machines notwithstanding the fact that all credits correspond only to those amounts received by customers from the cash machines in cash and vouchers to play the gaming machines?

      (1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).


title: Case T-337/11: Action brought on 24 June 2011 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/38

         Action brought on 24 June 2011 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI)
   (Case T-337/11)
   2011/C 252/86
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vicini SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 April 2011 in Case No R 0918/2010-2 and, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 April 2010 relating to Opposition No 992653

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: VICINI SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI’ (application for registration No 992.653), for goods in Classes 18 and 25

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier Community word mark ‘ZANOTTI’ (No 244.277), for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition rejected in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-308/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Italy v Commission (Structural funds — Co-financing — Regulations (EC) No 1260/1999 and (EC) No 448/2004 — Conditions concerning the eligibility of payments on account made by national bodies within the framework of State aid schemes — Proof of use of the funds by the final beneficiary — Actions for annulment — Challengeable act)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-308/05) (1)

   (Structural funds - Co-financing - Regulations (EC) No 1260/1999 and (EC) No 448/2004 - Conditions concerning the eligibility of payments on account made by national bodies within the framework of State aid schemes - Proof of use of the funds by the final beneficiary - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act)
   (2008/C 22/78)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: initially by A. Cingolo, and subsequently by P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and M. Velardo, Agents, assisted by G. Faedo, avocat)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decisions allegedly contained in Commission letters No 5272 of 7 June 2005, No 5453 of 8 June 2005, Nos 5726 and 5728 of 17 June 2005 and No 5952 of 23 June 2005.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-6/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa): Associação Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas (Anomar) and Others v Estado português (Freedom to provide services — Operation of games of chance or gambling — Gaming machines)

text:
1.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 264/5
      If the national court, in examining these measures, finds that         1.   Annuls Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/
      that requirement results in an obstacle to imports, then it                 2000 of 21 September 2000 amending Annex 4 to Protocol
      cannot be justified by reasons relating to the protection of the            No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation (EC)
      health and life of humans within the meaning of Article 36 of               No 3298/94 with regard to the system of ecopoints for heavy
      the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC).                        goods vehicles transiting through Austria;
2.    National courts have an obligation to ensure the full effect of        2.   Annuls Article 1 and Article 2(4) of that regulation but
      Article 30 of the Treaty by disapplying on their own initiative             declares that their effects are to be regarded as definitive;
      domestic provisions which do not comply with that article.
                                                                             3.   Dismisses the remainder of the action;
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                             4.   Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those of the
                                                                                interlocutory proceedings and of the procedure relating to the
                                                                                withdrawal of a document from the case-file;
                                                                             5.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic
                                                                                and the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                                                                                their own costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
                      of 11 September 2003
in Case C-445/00: Republic of Austria v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
(System of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting
through Austria — Amendment by Regulation (EC)                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   No 2012/2000 — Illegality)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                          (2003/C 264/07)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                   of 11 September 2003
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-6/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   in the European Court Reports)                            the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa): Associação
                                                                             Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas (Ano-
                                                                                mar) and Others v Estado português (1)
In Case C-445/00, Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi) v                    (Freedom to provide services — Operation of games of
Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino and                             chance or gambling — Gaming machines)
G. Houttuin) supported by Federal Republic of Germany
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by J. Sedemund), by Italian
Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli) and by                                             (2003/C 264/08)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
by C. Schmidt and M. Wolfcarius, and, subsequently,
C. Schmidt and W. Wils): Application for annulment of                                          (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 September
2000 amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Accession and Regulation (EC) No 3298/94 with regard to the                                      in the European Court Reports)
system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting
through Austria (OJ 2000 L 241, p. 18), the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris,               In Case C-6/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                 by the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa (Portugal) for a
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Con-                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
tet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               between Associação Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas
11 September 2003, in which it:                                              Recreativas (Anomar) and Others and Estado português, on
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/6                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              1.11.2003
the interpretation of Articles 2 EC, 28 EC, 29 EC, 31 EC and                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
49 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;                                                (Sixth Chamber)
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                of 11 September 2003
1.     Games of chance and gambling constitute economic activities             in Case C-13/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
       within the meaning of Article 2 EC.                                     the Giudice di pace di Genova): Safalero Srl v Prefetto di
                                                                                Genova (1)
2.     The activity of operating gaming machines must, irrespective of         (Directive 1999/5/EC — Radio equipment and telecommuni-
       whether or not it is separable from activities relating to the          cations terminal equipment — Effective judicial protection
       manufacture, importation and distribution of such machines,             of rights conferred by the Community legal order — Per-
       be considered a service within the meaning of the Treaty and,           missibility of administrative penalties under national legis-
       accordingly, it cannot come within the scope of Articles 28 EC          lation — Application to set aside a seizure measure against
       and 29 EC relating to the free movement of goods.                                                   a third party)
3.     A monopoly in the operation of games of chance or gambling                                        (2003/C 264/09)
       does not fall within the scope of Article 31 EC.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
4.     National legislation such as the Portuguese legislation which
       authorises the operation and playing of games of chance or
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       gambling solely in casinos in permanent or temporary gaming
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
       areas created by decree-law and which is applicable without
       distinction to its own nationals and nationals of other Member
       States constitutes a barrier to the freedom to provide services.
       However, Articles 49 EC et seq. do not preclude such national
       legislation, in view of the concerns of social policy and the
       prevention of fraud which justify it.                                   In Case C-13/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 of
                                                                               the EC Treaty by the Giudice di pace di Genova (Italy) for a
                                                                               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                               court between Safalero Srl and Prefetto di Genova, on the
5.     The fact that there might exist, in other Member States,                interpretation of the principles of proportionality, effectiveness
       legislation laying down conditions for the operation and playing        and judicial protection of rights conferred by the Community
       of games of chance or gambling which are less restrictive than          legal order, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
       those provided for by the Portuguese legislation has no bearing         J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
       on the compatibility of the latter with Community law.                  C. Gulmann, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporte-
                                                                               ur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                               on 11 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
6.     In the context of legislation which is compatible with the EC
       Treaty, the choice of methods for organising and controlling the
       operation and playing of games of chance or gambling, such as
       the conclusion with the State of an administrative licensing            The principle of effective judicial protection of the rights which the
       contract or the restriction of the operation and playing of certain     Community legal order confers on individuals is to be construed, in
       games to places duly licensed for that purpose, falls within the        circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as not precluding
       margin of discretion which the national authorities enjoy.              national legislation under which an importer cannot bring court
                                                                               proceedings to challenge a measure adopted by the public authorities
                                                                               under which goods sold to a retailer are seized, where there is available
                                                                               to that importer a legal remedy which ensures respect for the rights
                                                                               conferred on him by Community law.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Case C-50/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 March 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 March 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-50/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations)
   2011/C 152/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Russo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Installations which could have an effect on emissions into the air, water or soil and on pollution — Authorisation conditions for existing installations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (codifed version), by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of that directive or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations within the meaning of Article 2(4) of that directive operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 April 1996 in Case C-214/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Ingrid Boukhalfa v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (National of a Member State established in a non-member country - Employed on the local staff of the embassy of another Member State in that non-member country - Treated differently from local staff having the nationality of the Member State whose embassy is involved - Applicability of Community law - Prohibition of discrimination based on nationality)

text:
6 . 7 . 96                                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 197/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  3 . Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a national
                        of 30 April 1996                                   provision such as Article 4 of the Law of 10 April
                                                                           1990.
in Case C-194/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce de Liège ): CIA Security                     (!) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994.
  International SA v . Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL ( 1 )
(Interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and of
Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the
provision ofinformation in the field of technical standards
and regulations — National legislation on the marketing of                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
alarm systems and networks — Prior administrative
                             approval)                                                       of 30 April 1996
                          ( 96/C 197/05 )                             in Case C-214/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Ingrid Boukhalfa v.
                                                                                Bundesrepublik Deutschland ( 1 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       (National of a Member State established in a non-member
                                                                      country — Employed on the local staff of the embassy of
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be          another Member State in that non-member country —
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Treated differently from local staffhaving the nationality of
                                                                      the Member State whose embassy is involved —
                                                                      Applicability of Community law — Prohibition of
In Case C-194/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                        discrimination based on nationality)
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce de Liège
                                                                                ( 961 C 197/06 )
( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between CIA Security
International SA and Signalson SA, Securitel SPRL on the                             (Language of the case: German)
interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and of Council
Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
procedure for the provision of information in the field of                     published in the European Court Reports)
technical standards and regulations ( OJ L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 ),
as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March                In Case C-214/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 1988 ( OJ L 81 , 1988 , p . 75 ), the Court, composed of G. C.       of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.              Labour Court), Federal Republic of Germany, for a
Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Presidents of Chamber, G. F.            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.             court between Ingrid Boukhalfa and Bundesrepublik
Gulmann ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L.              Deutschland on the interpretation of Article 48 (2 ) of the EC
 Sevôn, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General, D.                     Treaty and Article 7 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of Regulation (EEC)
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator for the                    Nol612/68of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom
 Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 April 1996 , the operative          of movement for workers within the Community ( OJ,
 part of which is as follows :                                        English Special Edition, 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court,
                                                                      composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
                                                                       Kakouris (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
 1 . a rule such as Article 4 of the Belgian Law of 10 April           (Presidents   of Chambers ),       G.    F. Mancini,   F.   A.
      1990 on caretaking firms, security firms and internal            Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, P.
      caretaking services does not constitute a technical             Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger,
      regulation within the meaning of Council Directive               Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
      83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                        the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 April 1996, the
      procedure for the provision ofinformation in the field of        operative part of which is as follows :
      technical standards and regulations, as amended by
       Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988,                  the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality, laid
      whereas provisions such as those contained in the                down in Article 48 (2) ofthe EC Treaty and Article 7 (1 ) and
      Belgian Royal Decree of 14 May 1991 laying down the              (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
      procedure for approval of the alarm systems and                  1 5 October 1 968 on freedom of movement for workers
       networks referred to in the Law of 10 April 1990 do             within the Community, applies to a national of a Member
       constitute technical regulations and classification of a        State who is permanently resident in a non-member country,
       rule such as Article 12 of the Law of 10 April 1990             who is employed by another Member State in its embassy in
       depends on the legal effects which it has under domestic        that non-member country and whose contract of
       law;                                                            employment was entered into and is permanently performed
                                                                       there, as regards all aspects of the employment relationship
 2. Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 83/189, as amended by                which are governed by the legislation of the employing
       Directive 88/1 82, are to be interpreted as meaning that        Member State.
       individuals may rely on them before the national court
       which must decline to apply a national technical                 (M OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
       regulation which has not been notified in accordance
       with the directive: