title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 323, 21.12.2002

text:
11.1.2003        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         C 7/27
                                                            III
                                                          (Notices)
                                                      (2003/C 7/50)
             Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
          OJ C 323, 21.12.2002
          Past publications
          OJ C 305, 7.12.2002
          OJ C 289, 23.11.2002
          OJ C 274, 9.11.2002
          OJ C 261, 26.10.2002
          OJ C 247, 12.10.2002
          OJ C 233, 28.9.2002
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-124/14: Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-124/14) (1)

   (2015/C 127/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case C-222/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 May 2012 — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 May 2012 — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet
   (Case C-222/12)
   2012/C 209/08
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A. Karuse AS

      Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

      Question referred

   Must the expression ‘in connection with road maintenance’ used in the definition of the exception permitted in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) be interpreted as covering a tipping lorry with a laden weight of 25.5 tonnes carrying gravel along a public highway from a quarry to a site of road improvement and maintenance works?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1.


title: Case C-214/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 May 2015 — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA, Norcep, Construções e Empreendimentos, Lda

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 May 2015 — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA, Norcep, Construções e Empreendimentos, Lda
   (Case C-214/15)
   (2015/C 254/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar

      Defendants: Sá Machado & Filhos SA, Norcep, Construções e Empreendimentos, Lda

      Question referred

   In relation to a procedure for the award of a public works contract, does EU law, in particular Article 55 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1), permit the immediate exclusion of a tender that, when it is submitted, is not supported by a document justifying its ‘abnormally low price’, in a situation in which the contract documents fix the criterion for that requirement to be met [point 09/C1 of the ‘contract documents’]?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts

      OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 1999 in Case T-309/27: The Bavarian Lager Company Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Transparency - Access to information - Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public access to Commission documents - Scope of the exception relating to protection of the public interest - Draft reasoned opinion under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC))

text:
C 352/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.12.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 October 1999
                         of 14 October 1999
                                                                          in Case T-42/98: Maria Paola Sabbatucci v European
                                                                                Parliament (1)
in Case T-309/27: The Bavarian Lager Company Ltd v                        (Officials — Application for annulment of decisions of the
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                        Committee of Tellers — Interpretation of the electoral rules
                                                                          of the European Parliament — Exclusion of the applicant
                                                                                from the persons elected to the Staff Committee)
(Transparency — Access to information — Commission
Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public access to                                              (1999/C 352/61)
Commission documents — Scope of the exception relating to
protection of the public interest — Draft reasoned opinion
  under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC))                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In Case T-42/98: Maria Paola Sabbatucci, an official at the
                                                                          European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                           (1999/C 352/60)                                Alberto Dal Ferro and Andrea Cevese, of the Vicenza Bar,
                                                                          Chambers of Morresi Law Office, 67 Avenue des Nerviens,
                                                                          Brussels, against European Parliament (Agents: Antonio Caiola
                                                                          and Evelyn Waldherr) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decisions of the Committee of Tellers of 27 January and
                    (Language of the case: English)                       17 February 1998 in so far as she was excluded from the
                                                                          persons elected to the Staff Committee — the Court of First
                                                                          Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, acting on
                                                                          behalf of the President, V. Tiili and J. Azizi, Judges; A. Mair,
In Case T-309/97 The Bavarian Lager Company Ltd, whose                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
registered office is in Lancashire, United Kingdom, represented           7 October 1999, in which it:
by Stephen Hornsby, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of André Marc, 36-58 Rue                       1. Dismisses the application.
Charles Martel v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Carmel O’Reilly and Ulrich Wölker and, at the                    2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
hearing, Xavier Lewis), supported by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agents: John Collins and, at the           (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
hearing, Jessica Simor) — application for the annulment of a
Commission decision of 18 September 1997 refusing the
applicant access to a draft reasoned opinion drawn up by
the Commission under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 226 EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 14 October 1999, in which it:                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 October 1999
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                          in Case T-119/98: André Hecq v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2. Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to its own costs, those
     of the defendant;
                                                                          (Officials — Mission expenses — Calculation of daily
                                                                          subsistance allowance — Duration of the mission — Journey
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                          in private car)
     Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 352/62)
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-119/98: André Hecq, an official of the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, residing in Bonlez (Belgium)
                                                                          represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
                                                                          Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against Commission of the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 18 March 1997 in Case C-282/95 P: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Competition - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Notification under Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63/EEC - Definition of a position terminating the failure to act - Cross-appeal limited to costs)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/3
1 . declares that by maintaining in force Article L 213-1             1 . dismisses the appeals;
     of the Code du Travail prohibiting nightwork by
     women in industry whereas no such prohibition exists
     in relation to men, the French Republic has failed to
     fulfil its obligations under Article 5 (1 ) of Council           2 . orders Guérin Automobiles and the Commission of the
     Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                        European Communities to bear their own costs.
     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
     men and women as regards access to employment,
                                                                      (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
     vocational training and promotion, and working
     conditions:
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 18 March 1997
                                                                      in Case C-343/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Tribunale di Genova): Diego Cali & Figli Srl v. Servizi
                                                                               Ecologici Porto di Genova SpA ( SEPG) (')
                                                                      (Harbour company — Prevention of pollution — Statutory
                                                                              monopoly — Abuse of a dominant position)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/06
                        of 18 March 1997
in Case C-282/95 P: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission
                of the European Communities (')                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
(Appeal — Competition — Complaint — Action for
failure to act — Notification under Article 6 of Regulation
No 99/63/EEC — Definition of a position terminating the
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         failure to act — Cross-appeal limited to costs)
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 97/C 142/05 )
                                                                      In Case C-343/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Genova ( Italy) for
                  (Language of the case: French)                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                      that court between Diego Call & Figli Sri and Servizi Eco
                                                                      logici Porto di Genova SpA ( SEPG ), on the interpretation
                                                                      of Article 86 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of:
                                                                      G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Murray and L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, C. N.
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
                                                                      D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm and M.
                                                                      Wathelet, Judges; G. Gosmas, Advocate-General; L.
                                                                      Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
In Case C-282/95 P: Guérin Automobiles ( represented by               judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it has ruled:
Jean-Claude Fourgoux), an appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-186/94 ([ 1995 ] ECR 11-1753 ), seeking to have
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings           Article 86 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as not
being the Commission of the European Communities                      being applicable to anti-pollution surveillance with which
(Agents: Giuliano Marenco and Francisco Enrique                       a body governed by private law has been entrusted by the
Gonzalez-Diaz ), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez              public authorities in an oil port of a Member State, even
Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                 where port users must pay dues to finance that activity.
Almeida and J. L. Murray, Presidents of Chambers, C.         N.
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A.                O.       (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 3 . 1995 .
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,               H.
Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges;            G.
Tesauro, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it:


title: Case F-57/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — Hinderyckx v Council

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/42

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Hinderyckx v Council
   (Case F-57/06)
   (2006/C 178/78)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jacques Hinderyckx (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.A. Martin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade B*8 in the 2005 promotions procedure;

               —

               Promote the applicant to grade B*8;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 2 400 in compensation for all damage suffered;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who entered into the service of the European Parliament on 1 April 1994, was transferred to the General Secretariat of the Council on 16 July 2004, as a grade B*7 official. In his application, he disputes the Appointing Authority's decision not to promote him to grade B*8 in the 2005 promotions procedure.
   The applicant raises two pleas, the first of which is based on the combination of his length of service in the grade and the excellence of his services to the European Parliament.
   In relation to his second plea, the applicant claims that the Appointing Authority should have explained how the procedure used by the Consultative Commission on Promotions (CCP) took into account the differences between the structures of the standard Staff Reports of the European Parliament and the Council. The applicant further maintains that in order to ensure equal opportunity between candidates coming from different institutions, the Council should have provided itself with precise rules, in compliance with the Staff Regulations and capable of guaranteeing equal treatment in the comparative assessment of the merits. The absence of such rules has led the Council to adopt decisions of a discretionary nature.


title: Case T-308/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products — Earlier national figurative mark BÚFALO — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products)
   (Case T-308/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products - Earlier national figurative mark BÚFALO - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2012/C 6/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. (Pleasanton, California, United States) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

      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 intervening before the General Court: Werner & Mertz GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented initially by M. Thewes and V. Wiot, and subsequently by M. Thewes and P. Reuter, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 1094/2005-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Werner & Mertz GmbH and Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-353/12: Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Aleris v OHIM — Carefusion 303 (ALARIS)

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/12

         Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Aleris v OHIM — Carefusion 303 (ALARIS)
   (Case T-353/12)
   2012/C 311/15
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aleris Holding AB (Stockolm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar and K. Westerberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carefusion 303, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 11 May 2012 (R 334/2011-5), as well as Section 2 of the Cancellation decision, and render a decision in accordance with the applicant’s request; and

               —

               Order the respondent as the losing party to bear all costs and fees incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘ALARIS’, for goods and services in classes 10, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 571521

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark only in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the fundamental principles that must be applied in revocation proceedings based on non-use. Infringement of Articles 15 and 9 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-31/03: Action brought on 31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA, P.A., S.A. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
22.3.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 70/33
European Communities on 30 January 2003 by The General                  The applicant finally invokes a manifest error of assessment.
Workers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet i Dan-               The applicant alleges that the Commission should have made
mark ‘SID’), Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Philip                 an assessment of the effect of the tax exemptions have on the
Bentley QC, Mr Anders Worsøe and Mr Filip Ragolle, Lawyers.             employment of seafarers residing in a Member State and
                                                                        employed on terms and conditions which meet the high
                                                                        standards prevailing in the Community.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1 ) Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (OJ
                                                                             C 205 of 1997, p. 5.
—     annul Commission decision C(2002)4370fin of 13 Nov-
      ember 2002 in so far as it is decided not to raise any
      objections to fiscal measures that have been applied since
      1 January 1989 to seafarers on board vessels registered
      in Denmark, either in the DAS or in the DIS registers;
—     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
      Commission.
                                                                        Action brought on 31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA,
                                                                        P.A., S.A. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-31/03)
The applicant, the General Workers Union in Denmark, lodged                                       (2003/C 70/53)
a complaint with the Commission regarding the tax regime
applied to seafarers employed on board ships registered in the
Danish International Shipping register (DIS). In the contested                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
decision, the Commission decided not to raise objections to
the fiscal measures and considered that they constituted state
aid, but that they were and still are compatible with the
common market on the basis of Article 87 (3)(c) EC Treaty.
                                                                        An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA, P.A., S.A., whose regis-
The fiscal measures in question grant tax exemptions to all             tered office is in Madrid, represented by Álvaro Aguilar De
seafarers employed on board ships registered in the DIS
                                                                        Armas and José María Marrero Ortega.
register. The Commission considered that this was in conform-
ity with the Community guidelines on state aid to maritime
transport (1) according to which reduced rates of income tax
for EC seafarers on board ships registered in a Member State            The applicant claims that the Court should:
are compatible with the common market.
                                                                        —      annul the decision of the OHIM of 20 November 2002
                                                                               in so far as it refuses to register ‘GRUPO SADA’ as a
                                                                               Community trade mark; and
In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringe-
ment of essential procedural requirements and the principle of
good administration. The applicant alleges that the case                —      order OHIM to pay the costs.
involved serious difficulties and that the Commission therefore
should have opened an investigation pursuant to Article 88(2)
EC Treaty.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant furthermore submits a violation of
Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty in conjunction with the Community            Applicant for the Com-        The applicant
guidelines on state aid to maritime shipping and the principle          munity trade mark:
of legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the
Commission erred by interpreting the notion of ‘EC seafarers’           The Community trade           GRUPO SADA — Application
as meaning any seafarer employed on board a vessel registered           mark concerned:               No 157545 for goods in Class-
in a Member State.                                                                                es 29, 31 and 35
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/34               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                    22.3.2003
Proprietor of the right to SADIA CONOCORDIA               S.A.                                application upheld in respect of
the trade mark or sign     INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO                                               goods in Classes 31 and 35
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                         Decision of the Board of Appeal dismissed
                                                                     Appeal:
Trade mark or sign         SADIA (national registration
asserted by way of oppo-   numbers 1919733, 642151 and
sition in the opposition   2077409 in Spain, Italy and Ger-          Grounds of claim:        Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of
proceedings:               many respectively) for goods in                                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of
                           Class 29                                                           the case-law relating to the overall
                                                                                appraisal of the trade marks in
Decision of the Oppo-      Refusal to register the trade mark                                 question and to the likelihood of
sition Division:           for goods in Class 29, registration                                confusion between them


22.7.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 211/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               — order the European Parliament to pay default interest on
                                                                              the secretarial allowances due but not paid, together with
— annul the decision of the selection board in internal                       such sum as the Court shall think fit in respect of the non-
    competition COM/TA/99 rejecting the application submit-                   material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
    ted by the applicant;                                                     discriminatory conduct of the European Parliament in
                                                                              relation to her;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, who was a category B                   Pleas in law and main arguments
member of the auxiliary staff from December 1996 and May
1997 and subsequently established as an official, contests the
                                                                          The applicant in the present case is challenging what she
refusal to accept her application to take part in internal
                                                                          regards as a reduction in her remuneration resulting from her
competition COM/TA/99 based on tests for the constitution
                                                                          transfer from the Court of Justice to the defendant institution.
of a reserve list of administrators and principal administrators.
                                                                          She claims that the reduction in question has arisen by virtue
                                                                          of the non-payment, in her new post, of the secretarial
The decision rejecting her application is based on the twofold            allowance. She is also challenging the fact that she has not
grounds that (i), contrary to point II(b) of the notice of                been promoted to grade B4 despite having been told by the
competition, she did not enter the service of the Commission              institution from which she moved that such promotion should
by no later than 1 February 1997 and (ii) that her professional           not present any problem, similar cases having previously
experience, gained in category B, could not be regarded as                arisen in the past.
being at a level equivalent to that required for the duties
performed, as described in point I of that notice.
                                                                          The applicant considers that it is more equitable to apply a
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                           non-restrictive interpretation to the notion of remuneration.
                                                                          In her view, it is not appropriate to apply a literal interpretation
— the existence in the present case of a manifest error of                to the wording of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, the
    assessment and a misuse of powers;                                    decisive factor being the amount received by the official or
                                                                          agent concerned at the end of the month.
— infringement of Articles 5 and 27 of the Staff Regulations;
    and                                                                   She also pleads infringement of Article 62 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations and breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
— the illegality of the notice of competition COM/TA/99.
Action brought on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli against
                    the European Parliament                                       Removal from the register of Case T-75/98 (1)
                         (Case T-144/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/53)
                         (2000/C 211/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 22 May 2000, the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the European Parliament was brought before              European Communities (single judge: Mr Vesterdorf) ruled that
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   Case T-75/98 Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of the
on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli, residing at Dahlem                     European Communities be removed from the register.
(Luxembourg), represented by Gaston Vogel and Ferdinand
Burg, of the Luxembourg Bar.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of September 1999 reducing her
    remuneration;


title: Case T-554/08: Action brought on 8 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/34

         Action brought on 8 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission
   (Case T-554/08)
   (2009/C 55/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul DG TAXUD's decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tender TAXUD/2007/AO-005 (TIMEA) for the ‘Provision of services for the Community computer applications in the customs, excise and taxation areas’ (OJ 2008/S 203-268728) which was communicated to the applicant by letter dated 26 September 2008 and all further related decisions of the Commission including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order DG TAXUD to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 7 638 125;

               —

               order DG TAXUD to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application the applicant seeks the annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of the European Commission's (DG TAXUD) decision to reject the bid filed by the applicant in response to the open Call for Tenders TAXUD/2007/AO-005(TIMEA) for the ‘Provision of services for the Community computer applications in the customs, excise and taxation areas’ (OJ 2008/S 203-268728) which was communicated to the applicant by letter dated 26 September 2008, as well as the award of damages pursuant to Article 235 EC.
   The applicant claims that the Evaluation Committee committed various manifest errors of assessment with regards to the evaluation of the tender. According to the applicant, the Evaluation Committee deviated from the standard policy of the Commission and ignored the provisions included in the tender specifications of TIMEA, which suggest that the contracting authorities should contact the tenderer in the context of the selection phase of a Call for Tenders, and ask for additional information or clarifications. It is further submitted that Article 100 of the Financial Regulation and the principles of good administration and of legitimate expectations were breached by the contracting authority. In addition, the applicant claims that the contracting authority misused its powers and violated the principles of transparency and equal treatment provided for in Article 93(1) of the Financial Regulation.
   The applicant claims that the defendant failed to provide the applicant with an adequate analysis of the outcome of the verifications carried out further to the applicant's comments on the evaluation report.
   The applicant contends that the defendant used abusively the selection criteria in order to de-select the applicant's tender. By doing so, it infringed Articles 134(2) and 148(3) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 (1), as well as Article 32(2) of Directive 92/50 (2).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case F-48/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — CW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — Opinions and comments included in the staff report — Manifest errors of assessment — Misuse of powers — None)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/51

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — CW v Parliament
   (Case F-48/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - Opinions and comments included in the staff report - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers - None))
   2014/C 421/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CW (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CW to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 63.


title: Case C-99/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 13(1) — Audiovisual work — Infringing activity — Damages — Rules for calculation — Lump sum — Moral prejudice — Inclusion)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA
   (Case C-99/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 13(1) - Audiovisual work - Infringing activity - Damages - Rules for calculation - Lump sum - Moral prejudice - Inclusion))
   (2016/C 156/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Christian Liffers

      Respondents: Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as permitting a party injured by an intellectual property infringement, who claims compensation for his material damage as calculated, in accordance with heading (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive, on the basis of the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due to him if the infringer had requested his authorisation to use that right, also to claim compensation for the moral prejudice that he has suffered, as provided for under heading (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-197/11 and C-203/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele v Gouvernement flamand (C-197/11), All Projects & Developments NV and Others v Vlaamse Regering (C-203/11) (Fundamental freedoms — Restriction — Justification — State aid — Concept of ‘public works contract’ — Land and buildings located in certain communes — National legislation making the transfer of land and buildings subject to the condition that there exists a ‘sufficient connection’ between the prospective buyer or tenant and the target commune — Social obligation on subdividers and developers — Tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele v Gouvernement flamand (C-197/11), All Projects & Developments NV and Others v Vlaamse Regering (C-203/11)
   (Joined Cases C-197/11 and C-203/11) (1)

   (Fundamental freedoms - Restriction - Justification - State aid - Concept of ‘public works contract’ - Land and buildings located in certain communes - National legislation making the transfer of land and buildings subject to the condition that there exists a ‘sufficient connection’ between the prospective buyer or tenant and the target commune - Social obligation on subdividers and developers - Tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms)
   2013/C 225/06
   Languages of the case: French and Dutch

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

   (Case C-197/11)

      Applicants: Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele

      Defendant: Gouvernement flamand

      Intervening parties: Collège de la Commission communautaire française, Gouvernement de la Communauté française, Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-203/11)

      Applicants: All Projects & Developments NV and Others

      Defendant: Vlaamse Regering

      Intervening parties: College van de Franse Gemeenschapscommissie, Franse Gemeenschapsregering, Ministerraad, Immo Vilvo NV, PSR Brownfield Developers NV

      Re:

   (Case C-197/11)
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle — Interpretation of Articles 21, 45, 49, 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Compatibility of those provisions with regional legislation under which the sale or lease of land and buildings thereon located in certain communes is conditional upon the prospective purchaser or lessee having a sufficient connection with the commune concerned — Infringement of the right to freedom of movement and residence in the territory of Member States — General interest objective — Principle of proportionality
   (Case C-203/11)
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Grondwettelijk Hof — Interpretation of Articles 21, 45, 49, 56, 63, 107 and 108 TFEU and Article 86(2) EC — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114), of Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p.77) and of Articles 2(2)(a) and (j), 4(6), and 9, 14 and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) — State aid — Regional legislation on land and real estate policy — Social housing — Public works contracts — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC preclude legislation, such as Book 5 of the Decree of the Flemish Region of 27 March 2009 on land and real estate policy, which makes the transfer of immovable property in the target communes designated by the Vlaamse Regering subject to verification, by a provincial assessment committee, that there exists a ‘sufficient connection’ between the prospective buyer or tenant and those communes.

               2.

               Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation such as Book 4 of the Decree of the Flemish Region, according to which a ‘social obligation’ is imposed on some economic operators when a building or land subdivision authorisation is granted, in so far as the referring court finds that that legislation is necessary and appropriate to attain the objective of guaranteeing sufficient housing for the low-income or otherwise disadvantaged sections of the local population.

               3.

               The tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms provided for in the Flemish Decree are liable to be classified as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It is for the referring court to determine whether the conditions relating to the existence of State aid are met and, if so, to ascertain whether, as regards the measures established in Book 4 of the Flemish Decree whereby compensation is provided for the social obligation to which subdividers and developers are subject, Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) [EC] to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest is nevertheless applicable to such measures.

               4.

               The development of social housing units which are subsequently to be sold at capped prices to a public social housing institution, or with substitution of that institution for the service provider which developed those units, is covered by the concept of ‘public works contract’ contained in Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, where the criteria set out in that provision have been met, a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

      OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


title: Case C-218/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso (Italy) lodged on 11 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Gianpaolo Paoletti and Others

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso (Italy) lodged on 11 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Gianpaolo Paoletti and Others
   (Case C-218/15)
   (2015/C 262/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   Gianpaolo Paoletti, Umberto Castaldi, Domenico Faricelli, Antonio Angelucci, Mauro Angelucci, Antonio D’Ovidio, Camillo Volpe, Alfredo Viali, Giampaolo Canzano, Raffaele Di Giovanni, Antonio Della Valle

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7 of the ECHR, Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice, and Article 6 [TEU] be interpreted as meaning that Romania’s accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 had the effect of abolishing the criminal offence provided for in and punishable under Article 12 of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 (consolidated text [on immigration]) relating to the facilitating of the immigration and stay by Romanian nationals in the territory of the Italian State?

               2.

               Must those provisions be interpreted as precluding a Member State from applying the principle of benign retroactivity (in mitius) in respect of persons who, before 1 January 2007 (or other subsequent date on which the treaty took full effect), the date on which Romania’s accession to the European Union took effect, were responsible for breach of Article 12 of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 (consolidated text on immigration) in that they facilitated the immigration of Romanian nationals, which ceased to be an offence as from 1 January 2007?


title: Case F-70/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal procedure for 2008 — Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned — Consultation of the ad hoc group — Designation under the Staff Regulations — Designation for union purposes — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-70/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Appraisal procedure for 2008 - Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation - Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned - Consultation of the ad hoc group - Designation under the Staff Regulations - Designation for union purposes - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 38/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Mr Lebedef must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 52.


title: Case F-66/11: Action brought on 12 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/51

         Action brought on 12 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-66/11)
   2011/C 282/97
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision adopted by the chairman of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 (AST 1) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests.

      Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               As a main claim:

                           —

                           annul the decision adopted on 7 April 2011 not to allow the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretary, grade AST 1;

                           —

                           as a result, rule that the applicant must be reinstated within the recruitment process initiated by that competition, if necessary, through the organisation of fresh assessment tests;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that the main claim is not upheld, quod non, order the defendant to pay, by way of material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000, together with interest for late payment at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay, by way of non-material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000, together with interest for late payment at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-405/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 25 August 2014 — PST CLC a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 25 August 2014 — PST CLC a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel
   (Case C-405/14)
   (2014/C 431/17)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PST CLC a.s.

      Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

      Question referred

   Was Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 (1) of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid at the time of its effectiveness from 22 March 2004 to 22 December 2009 insofar as point 2 of the annex thereto is concerned, which specifies that products consisting of a heat sink and a fan fall within CN Code 8414 59 30, and was it thus applicable to the present case?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21.


title: Case C-289/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht München by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in the case of A.M.O.K. Verlags GmbH against A & R Gastronomie GmbH

text:
26.10.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 261/3
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
                                                                          gericht by order of that Court of 21 March 2002 in the
                                                                               case of the Land of Brandenburg against Ursula Sass
—     declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary                                 (Case C-284/02)
      to ensure a correct transposition and application of
      Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of 4 May 1976 on                                           (2002/C 261/04)
      pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dis-
      charged into the aquatic environment of the Community,
      Ireland has failed to comply with Directive 76/464/EEC              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      and in particular Articles 7 and 9 thereof and with its             European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
      obligations under the EC Treaty;                                    of 21 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 2 August
                                                                          2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Land of
                                                                          Brandenburg against Ursula Sass on the following question:
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                          Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Article 141 EC) and
                                                                          Directive 76/207/EEC ( 1) prohibit, in a provision of a collective
                                                                          agreement under which periods during which an employment
                                                                          relationship is in abeyance do not count towards the qualifying
                                                                          period, the exclusion of the period during which the employ-
                                                                          ment relationship was in abeyance because the employee
                                                                          concerned, on the expiry of the eligible eight-week period of
                                                                          protection pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Mutterschutzgesetz
                                                                          (Maternity Protection Law), claimed maternity leave pursuant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           to Paragraph 244(1) of the Labour Code of the German
                                                                          Democratic Republic (AGB-DDR) of 16 June 1977 (GBl. I,
                                                                          p. 185) until the end of the 20th week after confinement?
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 39, p. 40.
The Commission submits that, contrary to Articles 7 and 9 of
the Directive, Ireland has generally failed to reduce pollution
caused by phosphorus where this was already evident at the
time of adoption of the Directive and to prevent its emergence
and increase elsewhere. Furthermore, in the Commission’s
view, Ireland’s quality objectives for phosphorus, introduced             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
in 1998, and Irish measures with regard to authorisation of               richt München by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in
discharges do not comply with the requirements of Articles 7              the case of A.M.O.K. Verlags GmbH against A & R
and 9 of the Directive. In addition, the Commission considers                                   Gastronomie GmbH
that Ireland’s adopted programmes for the reduction of
phosphorous pollution suffer from significant shortcomings.                                       (Case C-289/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 261/05)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The Commission also submits that Ireland has failed to finalise           European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
and adequately implement pollution reduction programmes                   München (Munich Higher Regional Court) of 25 July 2002,
for List II substances other than phosphorus and/or to                    received at the Court Registry on 9 August 2002, for a
communicate programme summary results for these sub-                      preliminary ruling in the case of A.M.O.K. Verlags GmbH
stances.                                                                  against A & R Gastronomie GmbH on the following question:
                                                                          Are Articles 49 and 12 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
                                                                          decision of a national court in accordance with which, in a
                                                                          Member State (domestic territory), the maximum amount of a
( 1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.                                          claim for reimbursement of the costs of the services of a lawyer
                                                                          of a different Member State in domestic proceedings and of an
                                                                          Einvernehmensanwalt (domestic lawyer acting in conjunction
                                                                          with the foreign lawyer) is the sum of the costs including VAT
                                                                          which would have been incurred in the case of representation
                                                                          by a domestic lawyer?


title: Case T-511/16: Order of the General Court of 2 May 2017 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/28

         Order of the General Court of 2 May 2017 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
   (Case T-511/16) (1)

   (2017/C 202/45)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-23/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-306/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2006 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CLIMATIC) (Community trade mark — Partial refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2006 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CLIMATIC)
   (Case T-306/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Partial refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 212/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Risthaus, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Müller and G. Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2003 (Case R 1012/2001-2) regarding an application for registration of a figurative mark containing the word sign CLIMATIC as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003


title: Case C-387/08 P: Order of the Court of 3 April 2009 — VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH, Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for declaration of failure to act — Directive 89/665/EEC — Commission not implementing the corrective mechanism under Article 3(2) of Directive 89/665/EEC — Natural and legal persons — Direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/17

         Order of the Court of 3 April 2009 — VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH, Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-387/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for declaration of failure to act - Directive 89/665/EEC - Commission not implementing the corrective mechanism under Article 3(2) of Directive 89/665/EEC - Natural and legal persons - Direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 205/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH, Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH (represented by: C. Antweiler, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-185/08 VDH Projektenwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action for a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act, on the ground that it failed, in relation to the conclusion of a public works contract and in relation to the award of a general commercial contract, to implement without delay the corrective mechanism provided for under Article 3 of Directive 89/665/EEC and to send the Federal Republic of Germany a notification under Article 3(2) of that directive — Action brought by natural and legal persons for a declaration of failure to act — Need for the measure regarding which the institution is alleged to have unlawfully failed to act to be of direct concern to the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.


title: Case C-259/01: Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against French Republic

text:
11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 227/15
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘birds               Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the
directive’) by 1 January 1995. As of that date the obligations                 European Communities against French Republic
under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds directive in
respect of all areas classified pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of                               (Case C-259/01)
the birds directive were replaced by the obligations in
Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May                                      (2001/C 227/27)
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (‘habitats directive’) as laid down in Article 7 of that       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
directive.                                                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July 2001
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
As regards the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds               by Roland Tricot acting as Agent, with an address for service
directive with reference to Article 6(3) and (4) of the habitats         in Luxembourg.
directive the Swedish government considered that a number                The applicant claims that the Court should:
of amendments to its legislation were required to implement
the directive. The Commission claims that the necessary                  (a)   Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
measures were not taken within the period of two months                        within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                               the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules
As regards the consultation obligation under Article 6(3) of                   for the internal market in natural gas (1), the French
the birds directive the Commission claims that the necessary                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
measures were not taken within the period of two months                        directive and, in particular, Article 29;
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.
                                                                         (b) Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Finally, as regards the deficiencies in the correct implemen-
tation of Article 9 of the birds directive, the legal provisions         Pleas in law and main arguments
which Sweden claims incorporate Article 9, that is to say
Paragraph 23a of the Jaktförordningen (hunting regulation),              Under the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first
which incorporates Article 9(1)(a), Paragraph 9 of the Jaktlagen         paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty France was required
(hunting law), which incorporates Article 9(1)(c) and Para-              to adopt the measures necessary to transpose Directive
graph 31 of the Jaktförordningen, which incorporates                     98/30/EC at the latest by 10 August 2000, the date laid down
Article 9(1)(b), do not contain the specific information required        in Article 29 thereof.
under Article 9(2) of the birds directive. The further dero-
gations in the Swedish Jaktförordningen (Paragraphs 14, 15,              (1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 1.
20, 21, 27 and 29), in Paragraph 12 of the Artskyddförordn-
ingen (species protection regulation) (SFS 1998:1790) and in
Paragraph 5 of the protective provisions of the Naturvårdverket
(Swedish environment protection board) (NFS 1997:5) do not
contain the information required under Article 9(2) of the
birds directive. Nor does Paragraph 9b of the Jaktförordningen                  Removal from the register of Case C-216/00 (1)
specify the conditions of risk as prescribed by the third indent
of Article 9(2).                                                                                (2001/C 227/28)
                                                                         By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9.                                           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                           the register of Case C-216/00: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case T-159/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/30

         Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972)
   (Case T-159/17)
   (2017/C 195/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solemo Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972’ — Application for registration No 13 318 993

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 478/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 9 January 2017 in Case R 478/2016-1, which partially upheld the appeal filed by Solemo Oy and partially annulled the decision ruling on opposition No. B 2472267, against the European Union trademark application No. 13.318.993 ‘Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972’ property of the appellant, by virtue of which the said trademark has been entirely rejected in classes 37 and 39 and partially rejected in class 35;

               —

               grant the application for registration of the European Union trademark No. 13.318.993 ‘Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972’ for all services covered in classes 35, 37 and 39, due to the lack of existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier national trademark, registered in Finland under No. 250.356 ‘SOL’, property of the intervener, is protected;

               —

               order the intervener to bear the costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case F-26/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 8 July 2014  — Morgan v OHIM (Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — Application for annulment of the appraisal report)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/73

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 8 July 2014 — Morgan v OHIM
   (Case F-26/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Appraisal report - Application for annulment of the appraisal report))
   2014/C 315/123
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rhys Morgan (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application to annul the applicant’s appraisal report in respect of the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 and an application for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Morgan is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 56.


title: Action brought on 13 November 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-362/96)

text:
  11 . 1 . 97           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 9/ 11
  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
  Kôln by order of that court of 29 August 1996 in the case                that the Court should :
  of Société générale des grandes sources d'eaux minérales
             françaises against Bundesamt fiir Finanzen                    — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                                prescribed time limits the laws, regulations and
                            ( Case C-361 /96 )
                                                                                administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                 ( 97/C 9/19 )                                   with Commission Directive 93/106/EC (') amending
                                                                                Directive 92/76/EEC (2 ) recognizing protected zones
                                                                                exposed to particular plant health risks in the
                                                                                Community, and Commission Directive 94/3/EC ( 3 ) of
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          21 January 1994 establishing a procedure for the
 European Communities by order of the Second Senate of                           notification of interception of a consignment or a
 the Finanzgericht Koln ( Finance Court, Cologne ) of                            harmful organism from third countries and presenting
 29 August 1996, received at the Court Registry on                               an imminent phytosanitary danger, and by failing to
  12 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                      communicate those measures to the Commission, the
 Societe generate des grandes sources d'eaux minerales                           Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
 frangaises against Bundesamt fur Finanzen ( Federal                             obligations pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 93/106/
 Finance Office ) on the following questions :                                   EC and Article 7 of Directive 94/3/EC respectively,
                                                                          — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
 ( a ) Does Article 3 ( a ) of the eighth Council Directive 79/                 costs .
        1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization
       of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       taxes ( J ) preclude the Member States from providing
       in their national law that where an invoice or import              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
       document is lost for reasons beyond the control of a               Case C-356/96 (4 ); the time limit for transposition expired
       taxable person referred to in Article 2 of the Directive,          on 15 December 1993 in the case of Directive 93/ 106/EC
       that person may prove his entitlement to a refund by               and on 5 May 1994 in the case of Directive 94/3/EC.
       submitting a duplicate of tfie invoice or import
       document ?                                                         (') OJ No L 298 , 3 . 12 . 1993 , p. 34 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 305 , 21 . 10 . 1992 , p. 12 .
                                                                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 32, 5 . 2. 1994, p. 37.
 ( b ) Should the first question be answered in the negative,             (4) OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996, p. 10.
       does it follow from the prohibition on discrimination
       under Community law and from the principle of
       neutrality of turnover taxes that a taxable person
       referred to in Article 2 of the Directive, who loses an
       invoice or import document referred to in Article 3 ( a )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       for reasons beyond his control, has the right to prove
                                                                         Catania, First Civil Chamber, by order of that court of
       his entitlement to a refund by submitting a duplicate
                                                                          14 October 1996 in the case of ISFA SpA v. Ministero
       of the invoice or import document ?                                                              delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-363/96 )
( J ) OJ No L 331 , 27. 12 . 1979, p . 11 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/21 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of Tribunale di Catania
                                                                         ( District Court, Catania ), First Civil Chamber, of
                                                                          14 October 1996, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 13 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling
Action brought on 13 November 1996 by the Commission                     in the case of ISFA SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze on the
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                   following question :
                              Luxembourg
                                                                         Is it permissible under Community law for the competent
                          ( Case C-362/96 )                              authorities of the Italian State reasonably to rely on
                                                                         national procedural rules concerning the periods within
                               ( 97/C 9/20 )                             which proceedings must be brought ( in particular, the
                                                                         second paragraph of Article 13 of Presidential Decree
                                                                         No 641 of 26 October 1972 concerning a three-year
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                      period for bringing actions ) in proceedings brought against
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      those authorities by an individual before a national court
Communities on 13 November 1996 by the Commission                        for the purpose of safeguarding the right to reimbursement
of the European Communities, represented by Gerard                       of amounts unduly paid ( in respect of administrative
Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an                charges under Decree Law No 853/84, converted into Law
address for service in Luxemburg at the office of Carlos                 No 17/85 , as subsequently amended ) in contravention of
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                              the rules laid down in Council Directive 69/335/EEC of


title: Case T-238/14: Order of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — EGBA and RGA v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Gambling and betting — Aid envisaged by France for horse-racing companies — Parafiscal levy collected on online horse-race betting — Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market — Association — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/19

         Order of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — EGBA and RGA v Commission
   (Case T-238/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Gambling and betting - Aid envisaged by France for horse-racing companies - Parafiscal levy collected on online horse-race betting - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Association - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 222/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Brussels, Belgium) and The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S.-P. Brankin, Solicitor, T. De Meese, E. Wijckmans and M. Mudrony, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/19/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid No SA.30753 (C 34/10) (ex N 140/10) which France is planning to implement for horse-racing companies (OJ 2014 L 14, p. 17).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case C-325/00: Action brought on 4 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
4.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/15
1.    Is Article 141 (1) directly applicable in the circumstances        Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
      of this case (as set out in this judgment) so that it can be       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
      relied upon by the applicants in national proceedings to           Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, Wagner Centre,
      enable them to compare their pay with that of men in               Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
      the employment of the North Yorkshire County Council
      who are performing work of equal value to that done by             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the applicants?
                                                                         1.    declare that, by granting the seal of quality ‘Markenquali-
2.    Can an applicant who seeks to place reliance on the direct
                                                                               tät aus deutschen Landen’ to manufactured goods of a
      effect of Article 141, do so only if the respondent
                                                                               certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic
      employer is in a position where he is able to explain
                                                                               of Germany has infringed Article 28 EC;
      why the employer of the chosen comparator pays his
      employees as he does?
                                                                         2.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
(1) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The grant of the quality mark exclusively to German products
                                                                         which meet certain quality standards is likely to impede
                                                                         imports between Member States, whether directly or indirectly,
                                                                         actually or potentially. A designation of quality may not —
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                  subject to the provisions on designations of origin and
Münster by order of 21 August 2000 in the case of                        indication as to provenance — be reserved for domestic
     Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt                        products. The designation in question does not fall within the
                                                                         scope of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92,
                                                                         since it is too remote from the specific subject-matter of that
                         (Case C-324/00)                                 regulation. Even advertising by reference to a quality mark is
                                                                         not allowed to include the geographical origin of the goods, in
                         (2000/C 316/27)                                 this case ‘German’. Even if it is conceded to the Federal
                                                                         Government that the seal of quality does not reflect any
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   ‘chauvinistic intentions’, the emphasis on quality in direct
European Communities by order of 21 August 2000 by the                   association with an indication as to provenance — in this case,
Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Münster, which was received at             the domestic origin of the product — none the less constitutes
the Court Registry on 4 September 2000, for a preliminary                at the same time discrimination against equivalent goods of
ruling in the case of Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt                 different origin.
Steinfurt on the following question:
Is the requirement of freedom of establishment for nationals
of a Member State in the territory of another Member State
laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty of 10 November 1997
establishing the European Community to be interpreted as
precluding the national rule in Paragraph 8a of the German
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on Corporation Tax)?
                                                                         of Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
                                                                         by order of that court of 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000 in the case of Santex SpA v
                                                                         Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42, Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke,
                                                                                Artsana SpA and Fater SpA
                                                                                (Case C-327/00)
Action brought on 4 September 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                         (2000/C 316/29)
                         (Case C-325/00)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
                                                                         Tribunal Amministrativo per la Lombardia (Regional Adminis-
                         (2000/C 316/28)                                 trative Court, Lombardy) dated 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000, which was received at the Court
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    Registry on 5 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             case of Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42,
ties on 4 September 2000 by the Commission of the European               Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the
Communities, represented by J. Christian Schieferer and                  following questions:


title: Case C-107/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo Chamber For Administrative Proceedings Fourth Section by order of that Court of 1 December 2003 in the proceedings brought by Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica against Administración del Estado, supported by Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo Chamber For Administrative Proceedings Fourth Section by order of that Court of 1 December 2003 in the proceedings brought by Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica against Administración del Estado, supported by Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica
   (Case C-107/04)
   (2004/C 94/70)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo Chamber For Administrative Proceedings Fourth Section (Spain) of 1 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on 1 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica against Administración del Estado, supported by Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/1991 of 24 June 1991 (1), supplemented by Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 (2), on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs regard, in all Member States, the terms ‘Biológico’ (biological) and ‘Ecológico’ (ecological) and their derivatives ‘Bio’ and ‘Eco’ as indications which suggest to the purchaser that the product or its ingredients have been obtained in accordance with the rules on organic production?

               2.

               Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/1991 of 24 June 1991, supplemented by Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999, on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs necessarily reserve, in all Member States, the terms ‘Biológico’ (biological) and ‘Ecológico’ (ecological) and their derivatives ‘Bio’ and ‘Eco’ for products which have been obtained in accordance with the rules laid down in respect of organic production in that regulation?

               3.

               Does Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/1991 of 24 June 1991, supplemented by Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999, on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs reserve, in Spanish, only the term ‘Ecológico’ and its derivative ‘Eco’ for products which have been obtained in accordance with the rules laid down in respect of organic production in the regulation, so that it may not be contrary to European law to use the term ‘Biológico’ and its derivative ‘Bio’ in Spain for on-organic products, if, through use, that term and its derivative have become a generic term and derivative, because in Spain they do not designate foodstuffs with particular characteristics connected with organic production methods?

      (1)  OJ L 198 of 22.07.1991, p. 1.

      (2)  OL L 222 of 24.08.1999, p. 1.