title: Case T-71/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Anapurna/OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/25

         Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Anapurna/OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA)
   (Case T-71/13)
   2013/C 101/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anapurna GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annapurna SpA (Prato, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the contested decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHMI of 3 December 2012, inasmuch as it upheld the registration of Community trademark No 001368166 ‘ANNAPURNA’, and did not declare it null and void, for the goods ‘bags’ (class 18), ‘bed covers and bed linen’ (class 24) and ‘articles of clothing, headgear, slippers’ (class 25);

               —

               Order the intervening party to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred during the course of the appeal proceedings;

               —

               Request the defendant to produce the evidence of use (‘Exhibits’) submitted by the intervening party within the framework of the nullity proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘ANNAPURNA’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 368 166

      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 in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part and revoked the Community trade mark for further goods

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-60/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Ángel Somoza Hermo v Esabe Vigilancia, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Ángel Somoza Hermo v Esabe Vigilancia, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)
   (Case C-60/17)
   (2017/C 121/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ángel Somoza Hermo, Ilunión Seguridad, S.A.

      Respondents: Esabe Vigilancia, S.A., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses apply (1) when an undertaking ceases to hold the contract for the service it is engaged to provide for a client as a result of termination of the contract for the provision of the service, in a labour-intensive business (security of buildings), and the new holder of the contract for the service takes on the majority of the employees assigned to the performance of that service, when those employment contracts are taken over in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement on employment in the security sector?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative, if the legislation adopted by the Member State in order to transpose the Directive provides, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC, that after the date of the transfer the transferor and the transferee are to be jointly and severally liable for obligations, including those relating to wages, which arose before the date of the transfer as a result of employment contracts existing on the date of the transfer, is an interpretation to the effect that joint and several liability for prior obligations does not apply when the majority of the workforce were taken on by the new contractor as a result of the requirements of the collective agreement for the sector, and the wording of that agreement excludes joint and several liability for obligations preceding the transfer, compatible with that article of the Directive?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.


title: Case T-396/09: Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/28

         Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission
   (Case T-396/09)
   2009/C 297/41
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Vereniging Milieudefensie (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. van den Biesen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action brought by the applicants to be well founded;

               —

               set aside Commission Decision C(2009) 6121 of 28 July 2009, which is contested in this case;

               —

               order the Commission to examine, as to its substance, the request for an internal review within a period to be determined by the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants are two Netherlands environmental organisations which, on the basis of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, (1) requested the defendant to carry out a review of the earlier Commission Decision C(2009) 2560 of 7 April 2009, by which the Commission had authorised the Netherlands to defer to a later date compliance with its obligations under Directive 2008/50/EC (2) in respect of improvements to air quality. The applicants are challenging the Commission’s decision to declare inadmissible their request for a review of the earlier decision addressed to the Netherlands.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit, first, that, in the contested decision, the Commission did not invoke the restriction of the scope of Regulation No 1367/2006 set out in Article 2(1)(c) and that, as a consequence, it did not adopt the decision of 7 April 2009 while acting in a legislative capacity.
   The applicants also contend that the decision of 7 April 2009 is individual, and not general, in its scope.
   The applicants conclude by submitting that, if secondary Community legislation does not comply with the Aarhus Convention approved by the Council, (3) the legislation in question must be interpreted in accordance with that convention, and that, if this is not possible, the Convention must be applied directly by the organs and institutions of the Community. Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 should for that reason, according to the applicants, not be applied.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (2)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case C-471/10: Order of the President of the Court of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg — Austria) — Martin Wohl, Ildiko Veres v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg — Austria) — Martin Wohl, Ildiko Veres v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt
   (Case C-471/10) (1)

   2011/C 211/46
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-477/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — Epsilon International v Commission

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/49

         Action brought on 26 August 2016 — Epsilon International v Commission
   (Case T-477/16)
   (2016/C 402/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Epsilon International SA (Marousi, Greece) (represented by: D. Bogaert and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               On the basis of article 272 TFEU:

                           —

                           declare that the amounts paid by the European Commission to the Epsilon under the Grant Agreements BRISEIDE, i-SCOPE and SMART-ISLANDS constitute eligible costs and that Epsilon did not commit errors of a systematic nature in the performance of these agreements;

                           —

                           declare that the Commission’s request for reimbursement of the amounts paid under the BRISEIDE agreement is wholly unfounded and that they should not be repaid to the European Commission;

                           —

                           declare that the European Commission’s decisions to suspend payments regarding Grant agreements i-LOCATE, eENV-Plus, GeoSmartCity and c-SPACE are unfounded;

                           —

                           order the Commission to reimburse the amounts paid by Epsilon to carry out additional financial audits to contradict the erroneous findings of the auditors mandated by the Commission and to compensate the moral prejudice suffered by Epsilon, assesses provisionally on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 10 000.

               2)

               On the grounds of article 263 TFEU, annul the European Commission’s decision of June 17th 2016 (ref. Ares (2016)2835215) to register Epsilon in the Early Detection and Exclusion System Database (EDES).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action based on the grounds of article 272 TFUE, Epsilon considers that the findings raised by the auditors and endorsed by the European Commission which relate to the personnel costs declared for the performance of the BRISEIDE, SMART-ISLANDS and i-SCOPE projects are erroneous. More specifically, Epsilon argues that no irregularity were committed regarding the time recording system, the productive hours and hourly rate calculations, the lack of invoice for the owners’ work and the fact that the agreements concluded with the in-house consultants had not been registered to the Tax Office. In any case, any minor errors regarding the performance of these contracts cannot be regarded as an error of a systematic nature.
   Moreover, Epsilon contests the Commission’s decision to suspend the payments for the performance of the EU funded projects i-LOCATE, eENV-Plus, GeoSmartCity and c-SPACE and considers that they are not legally founded.
   Finally, Epsilon requests a financial compensation for the material and non-material suffered by Epsilon due to the Commission’s decisions.
   In support of the action based on the grounds of article 263 TFUE, Epsilon requests the General Court to annul the Commission’s decision to register Epsilon in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database (EDES), due to the alleged potentially systematic nature of the errors committed in the performance of the abovementioned projects. The applicant considers that this decision breaches the principle of proportionality and the rights of the defence.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-86/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Commission's refusal to authorise the use of heavy fuel oils with a maximum sulphur content of 3 % by mass in part of Greek territory — Directive 1999/32/EC — Sulphur content of certain combustible liquids)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-86/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Commission's refusal to authorise the use of heavy fuel oils with a maximum sulphur content of 3 % by mass in part of Greek territory - Directive 1999/32/EC - Sulphur content of certain combustible liquids)
   (2006/C 48/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-86/03 Hellenic Republic (Agent: P. Mylonopoulos and A. Samoni-Rantou) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Konstantinidis and G. Valero Jordana) supported by: Council of the European Union (Agents: Kyriakopoulou and B. Hoff-Nielsen) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 26 February 2003, — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

               1

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs;

               3

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.


title: Case C-325/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga Meabe against the order delivered on 28 April 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-15/03 between José Luis Zuazaga Meabe and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal being Banco de Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.

text:
C 239/2                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
       —    were never the subject of consultation with the                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
            Commission before being approved,
       the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Articles 1, 4, 7 and 9
       of Regulation No 3577/92 (1) and has failed to fulfil its            1.    quash the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
       obligations under that regulation and the EC Treaty.                       Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2003 in Case T-15/03,
                                                                                the applicant having shown all the requisite care and
                                                                                attention for the transmission of documents to the Court
2.     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                               of First Instance;
                                                                            2.    consequently, to refer the case back to the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   Instance for a declaration that the action for annulment
                                                                                in Case T-15/03 is admissible, and for proceedings to
                                                                                continue before the Court of First Instance on the basis
The Vigo estuary is within the territorial scope of Regulation                    of the claims submitted in the application against the
No 3577/92. That regulation was not designed to regulate                          decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of
competence in a specific market. The fact that sea traffic                        24 October 2002 in Case R 918/2001-2, concerning
between the ports of the Vigo estuary is local does not preclude                  opposition proceedings between José Luis Zuazaga Meabe
the application of the principle of freedom to provide services.                  and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992
     applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
     transport with Member States (maritime cabotage), OJ L 364,
     12.12.1992, p. 7.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     Infringement of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of
                                                                                Justice: the applicant pleads the existence of unfavourable,
                                                                                unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances which were
Appeal brought on 25 July 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga                               beyond his control, which prove the existence of unfore-
Meabe against the order delivered on 28 April 2003 by                             seeable circumstances or force majeure. The confirmation
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                           by registered letter lodged with the Spanish postal services
(Second Chamber) in Case T-15/03 between José Luis                                on 7 January 2003 of the application, transmitted to the
Zuazaga Meabe and the Office for Harmonisation in                                 Court of First Instance by fax on 3 January 2003, was
the Internal Market (OHIM), the other party to the                                ineffective for reasons beyond the applicant’s control.
proceedings before the Board of Appeal being Banco de                             The principle of proportionality therefore requires the
                 Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.                                   Court of First Instance to adopt a flexible approach.
                         (Case C-325/03 P)
                                                                            —     Infringement of Articles 102 of the Rules of Procedure of
                                                                                the Court of First Instance and Article 81(2) of the Rules
                           (2003/C 239/03)                                        of Procedure of the Court of Justice: the applicant submits
                                                                                that, to the ordinary time-limit extended by ten days on
                                                                                account of distance may be allowed an additional ten
                                                                                days for a definite confirmation of the document trans-
                                                                                mitted by fax.
An appeal against the order delivered on 28 April 2003 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-15/03 between José Luis Zuazaga
Meabe and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market               —     Infringement of Article 103 of the Rules of Procedure of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           the Court of First Instance and Article 82 of the Rules of
Communities on 25 July by José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, rep-                           Procedure of the Court of Justice: the applicant claims
resented by José Antonio Calderón Chavero and Natalia Moya                        that the principle of proportionality can and should be
Fernández, with an address for service in Luxembourg, the                         applied to set the deadline in a flexible manner in cases
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal                         such as this, where the applicant sent the document in
being Banco de Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.                                     advance by fax.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.10.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 239/3
—      Infringement of Article 43(3) of the Rules of Procedure           Further, is the use in a bank, as a credit institution, of balances
       of the Court of First Instance: the applicant submits that        on a deposit account, funds being placed in that account, as
       in the present case the appeal was not accepted on the            provided for in Decision 1097/1959 of the Monetary Com-
       grounds of alleged failure to observe the period of               mittee referred to in this judgment (with the proceeds of
       confirmation, rather than the procedural time-limit which         imported foreign currency, and so forth), as deposits in
       was complied with by transmission of the fax.                     national currency, convertible into foreign currency, governed
                                                                         by Article 4 of that same directive, List D and item IX of the
                                                                         Nomenclature, which reads: ‘Opening and placing of funds on
—      Infringement of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure           current or deposit accounts, repatriation or use of balances on
       of the Court of First Instance: the applicant submits, in         current or deposit accounts with credit institutions’, as that
       accordance with the principle of proportionality, that to         provision stands according to its spirit and the purpose sought
       the existing procedural time-limit, extended by ten days          by that provision?
       on account of distance, may be added ten additional days
       in order to validate an application and a list of annexes
       previously sent by fax.
                                                                         (1 ) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962 p. 49.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Areiou Pagou                   Action brought on 29 July 2003 by the Commission
by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the case of                   of the European Communities against the Portuguese
        Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia                                                    Republic
                         (Case C-329/03)                                                            (Case C-332/03)
                         (2003/C 239/04)                                                            (2003/C 239/05)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
European Communities by order of the Areiou Pagou                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July
(Supreme Court of Cassation) of 31 March 2003, received at               2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the Court Registry on 28 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling             represented by Thomas van Rijn and Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
in the case of Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia on          acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
the following question:
Are (a) bonds issued by a bank in the form of a limited                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
company belonging, by virtue of its shares, to the State, with a
maturity of one year from issue which are dealt in on the
                                                                         1)     declare that:
money market, where they are quoted, or (b) bonds issued by
a bank in the form of a limited company with a maturity of
one year from issue which are dealt in on the money market,                     —     by failing to adopt appropriate rules for the use of
where they are quoted, governed by Article 4 of the First                             the quotas allocated to it for the fishing years from
Directive of the Council of the European Communities (921/                            1994 to 1996;
60) ( 1), List D and item VI of the Nomenclature, which reads
‘Short-term investments in Treasury bills and other securities
normally dealt in on the money market’, as that provision                       —     by failing to ensure compliance with Community
stands according to its spirit and the purpose sought or is to                        legislation in the field of conservation, by means of
be interpreted under a possible doctrine in international trade                       sufficient supervision of fishing activities and adqua-
of common experience, to the effect that securities such as                           te inspection of the fishing fleet and of the unloading
the one-year bonds in ETVA at issue constitute short-term                             and recording of catches in the fishing years 1994 to
investments?                                                                          1996;


title: Case C-231/99: Action brought on 16 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
28.8.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                 4. Is Commission Regulation No 1576/95 of 30 June 1995
Genova, Sezione I, by order of that court of 25 May 1999                   likewise invalid and thus of no legal effect for lack of a
in the case of Siples srl in liquidation against (1) Ministero             statement of reasons?
delle Finanze and (2) Servizio Riscossione Tributi Conces-
sione Provinciale Genova San Paolo Riscossioni Genova                  5. Do the export operations of 30 June 1995 fall within the
                                SpA                                        scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1415/95 of 22
                                                                           June 1995 as a result of the invalidity of the above-
                         (Case C-226/99)                                   mentioned regulations, or by the repeal referred to in
                                                                           Question 1?
                         (1999/C 246/26)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 150 of 1.7.1995, p. 64.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (2) OJ L 147 of 30.6.1995, p. 65.
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
Genova Sezione I (Genoa District Court, First Chamber) of 25
May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 11
June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Siples srl in
liquidation against (1) Ministero delle Finanze and (2) Servizio
Riscossione Tributi Concessione Provinciale Genova San Paolo
Riscossioni Genova SpA on the following question:
Is the power to suspend the contested decision provided for in         Action brought on 16 June 1999 by the Commission
Article 244 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) conferred               of the European Communities against the Republic of
exclusively on the customs authority or also on the judicial                                         Austria
authority before which an appeal has been brought?
                                                                                (Case C-231/99)
(1) Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12.10.1992, OJ 1992 L 302,
    p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/28)
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 June
                                                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal Service, acting as
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
Cagliari, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 21 May             of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
1999, in the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero               Centre, Kirchberg.
                           delle Finanze
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-228/99)
                                                                       1. Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                         (1999/C 246/27)                                   obligations under the EC Treaty and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     — Council Directive 96/32/EC (1) of 21 May 1996
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Cagliari,                     amending Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating
Sezione Civile, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the                       to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues
Court Registry on 14 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                     in and on fruit and vegetables and Annex II to Directive
the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero delle Finanze                   90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels
on the following questions:                                                     for pesticide residues in and on certain products
                                                                                of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, and
1. Does Commission Regulation No 1576/95 (1) of 30 June                         providing for the establishment of a list of maximum
     1995 repeal Commission Regulation No 1521/95 (2) of 29                     levels, and
     June 1995 and, if so, must the latter be held to have had
     no legal effects on 30 June 1995?
                                                                           — Council Directive 96/33/EC (2) of 21 May 1996
                                                                                amending the Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC and
2. Must Commission Regulation No 1521/95 of 29 June
                                                                                86/363/EEC on the fixing of maximum levels for
     1995 be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied to
                                                                                pesticide residues in and on cereals and foodstuffs of
     export operations already underway and already completed
                                                                                animal origin respectively,
     on the same day on which the regulation itself was
     published and thus made available to the operators
     concerned?                                                            by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
                                                                           period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
3. Is Commission Regulation No 1521/95 of 29 June 1995                     necessary to comply with those directives;
     invalid and thus of no legal effect for lack of a statement
     of reasons?                                                       2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           28.8.1999
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                         State examination, without giving further details, gives the
                                                                               impression that all the areas of specialised medicine
                                                                               concerned must be the subject of comprehensive fresh
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                     training, whereas Article 8(3) provides at most for
Case C-227/99 (3); the period for transposition of the directives              additional training in certain areas. In addition, the Spanish
expired on 30 April 1997.                                                      authorities have not demonstrated the utility of such an
                                                                               examination if the training is to be merely supplementary
                                                                               and limited.
(1) OJ L 144 of 18.6.1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 144 of 18.6.1996, p. 35.                                         — Failure to give effect to Article 18 of Directive 93/16/EEC:
(3) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                                 Spain has not shown that the application of its existing
                                                                               domestic law can have an effect equivalent to the
                                                                               implementation of that article.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 165 of 7.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                          (2) Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the
                                                                              mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
                                                                              formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate
Action brought on 17 June 1999 by the Commission of                           the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                         provide services (OJ L 167 of 30.6.75, p. 1).
                          (Case C-232/99)
                         (1999/C 246/29)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by Københavns Byret
                                                                          by order of 17 June 1999 in the case of Anklagemyn-
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                               digheden v Tonny Haugsted Hansen
Court of Justice on 17 June 1999 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Isabel Martı́nez del
Peral and Bernard Monguin, of its Legal Service, acting as                                           (Case C-233/99)
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/30)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of 17 June 1999 by
1. Declare that, by failing to give due effect within the                 Københavns Byret (Copenhagen District Court), which was
    prescribed period to Article 8 of Council Directive                   received at the Court Registry on 21 June 1999, for a
    93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) to facilitate the free move-            preliminary ruling in the case of Anklagemyndigheden (Public
    ment of doctors and the mutual recognition of their                   Prosecution Department) v Tonny Haugsted Hansen on the
    diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifi-          following questions:
    cations and by failing to give effect to Article 18 of that
    directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          1. Must European Parliament and Council Directive
    obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive;
                                                                               94/62/EC(1) of 20 December 1994 on packaging and
                                                                               packaging waste, in particular Article 18, in conjunction
2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                with Articles 5, 7 and 9 thereof, be interpreted as
                                                                               precluding a national system under which criminal charges
                                                                               may be brought against a person who, contrary to certain
                                                                               national rules on the packaging of beer and soft drinks,
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                               has marketed imported canned cola in the metal packaging
                                                                               at issue in this case?
— Failure to give due effect to Article 8 of Directive
    93/16/EEC: a Member State may not make access to the
    training leading to the award of a specialist diploma in              2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Do the
    cases not covered by automatic recognition under the                       provisions of the directive, in particular Article 18, in
    directive systematically conditional upon the passing of a                 conjunction with Articles 5, 7 and 9 thereof, satisfy the
    State examination, like the public examination laid down                   conditions for being directly applicable, so that a person
    for access to the training to become a ‘Resident Medical                   who has been charged can rely directly on the provisions
    Intern’. Articles 39 (ex Article 48) and 43 (ex Article 52)                of the directive before national courts?
    of the EC Treaty, for the implementation of which
    Directives 75/362/EEC (2) and 93/16/EEC were adopted,                 3. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 28
    require the Member States to take account, in the broadest                 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 30), in conjunction with
    and most practical way, of training already undertaken in                  considerations of environmental protection (see judgment
    another Member State. However, to subject migrants to a                    of 20 September 1988 in Case 302/86 Commission v


title: Case C-152/16: Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/13

         Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-152/16)
   (2016/C 191/17)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that by failing to create its national electronic register of road transport undertakings and interconnecting it with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1);

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009 provides that each Member State is to keep a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which have been authorised by the competent national authority to engage in the occupation of road transport operator.
   However, it is apparent from the answer given by the Luxembourg State to the letter of formal notice that such a national register has not been set up.
   It follows that the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009.
   Under Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009, the Member States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the national electronic registers are interconnected and accessible throughout the European Union.
   As it does not even have a national register, there can be no doubt that the Luxembourg Administration has not taken the measures necessary to interconnect its national register (which it does not have) with other national registers.
   That being the case, the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.


title: Case F-14/12: Action brought on 4 February 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/33

         Action brought on 4 February 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors
   (Case F-14/12)
   2012/C 138/75
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decisions not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion procedure

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 26 May 2011 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion procedure;

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 18 November 2011 confirming the number of posts available for promotion to grade AD 13 in 2011, with the result that the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 26 May 2011 was rejected;

               —

               order the European Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case C-137/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Partena ASBL v Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Partena ASBL v Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA
   (Case C-137/11)
   2011/C 179/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Partena ASBL

      Defendant: Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of applying Article 13 et seq. of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) and, more specifically, Article 14c thereof, may a Member State, within the framework of its powers to define the conditions for coverage by its social security scheme for self-employed persons, treat the ‘management from abroad of a company which is liable to tax in that State’ in the same way as the exercise of an activity within its territory?;

               2.

               Is subparagraph 4 of Article 3(1) of Decree No 38 of 27 July 1967 organising the social security scheme for self-employed persons compatible with the law of the European Union and, in particular, with freedom of movement and of residence as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as it does not allow a person who is resident in another Member State and who manages from abroad a company which is liable to Belgian tax to rebut the presumption that he is covered by the social security scheme for self-employed persons, whereas an agent who is resident in Belgium and who does not manage such a company from abroad has the right to rebut that presumption and to adduce evidence that he is not carrying on an activity as a self-employed person for the purposes of subparagraph 1 of Article 3(1) of Royal Decree No 38?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, p. 2).


title: Case C-289/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Dax, by judgment of that court of 2 July 2001 in the case of Ministère Public against Jean-Marie Perchicot

text:
C 275/8                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           29.9.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                    Is Paragraph 10(2) Nr. 2 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (EStG)
istrative d’Appel de Douai, France, by judgment of that                    as it stood in 1992, which makes the tax deductibility of
court of 12 July 2001 in the case of Isabel Burbaud v                      contributions to insurance undertakings conditional upon the
           Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité                       undertaking having its seat or its management in Germany or
                                                                           having been granted authorisation to carry on business in
                                                                           Germany, compatible with Articles 39, 43 and 49 (ex
                           (Case C-285/01)
                                                                           Articles 48, 52 and 59) of the EC Treaty?
                          (2001/C 275/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Douai, (Administrative Court of Appeal,
Douai), France, of 12 July 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 18 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Isabel Burbaud v Ministère de l’Emploi et de la
Solidarité, on the following questions:
(1) Is a training course in a practical training school for                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
      public servants, such as the ENSP (École Nationale de la            Grande Instance, Dax, by judgment of that court of 2 July
      Santé Publique; National School of Public Health), leading           2001 in the case of Ministère Public against Jean-Marie
      to establishment in the public service, to be treated in the                                       Perchicot
      same way as a diploma within the meaning of Council
      Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) and, if so,
      how was the equivalence of the diplomas from the                                               (Case C-289/01)
      National School of Public Health, Lisbon, and the National
      School of Public Health, Rennes, to be assessed?
                                                                                (2001/C 275/17)
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
      may the competent authority make admission to the
      public service of public servants from another Member
      State who rely on an equivalent diploma subject to                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      conditions, and in particular subject to passing the                 European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
      School’s entrance examination, even for those who have               Grande Instance (Regional Court), Dax, of 2 July 2001, which
      sat a similar competition in their country of origin?                was received at the Court Registry on 20 July 2001, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public against Jean-
                                                                           Marie Perchicot on the following question:
(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
    system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
    on completion of professional education and training of at least
    three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).
                                                                           Where a vehicle is hired without a driver as provided for by
                                                                           Article 2 of Council Directive 84/647/EEC (1) is the lessor, a
                                                                           French road haulage company, permitted:
                                                                           —     to obtain the carriage authorisations necessary within
                                                                                French territory on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-                             company governed by French (sic) law
Holsteinisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of
31 May 2001 in the case of Ulf Thomsen against Finanzamt
                              Flensburg                                    —     to manage on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
                                                                                company governed by Spanish law, the tachograph discs
                                                                                of the drivers employed by that company?
                           (Case C-288/01)
                          (2001/C 275/16)
                                                                           (1) Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 December 1984 on the use
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road
European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holstei-                        (OJ L 335, 22.12.1984, p. 72).
nisches Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Schleswig-Holstein) of
31 May 2001, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ulf Thomsen v
Finanzamt Flensburg on the following question:


title: Case C-314/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Planet AE (Appeals — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Identification of the level of risk associated with an entity — Early warning system — OLAF investigation — Decisions — Requests for activation of W1a and W1b warnings — Reviewable measures — Admissibility)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Planet AE
   (Case C-314/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Identification of the level of risk associated with an entity - Early warning system - OLAF investigation - Decisions - Requests for activation of W1a and W1b warnings - Reviewable measures - Admissibility)
   2013/C 46/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Planet AE (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-320/09 Planet AE v Commission dismissing the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission in an action for the annulment of Commission decisions, taken following investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), to activate, in the early warning system (EWS), a ‘W1a’ registration and subsequently a ‘W1b’ registration, identifying the level of risk associated with the applicant as a party awarded a public service contract concerning a project for institutional and sectoral modernisation in Syria, funded under the MEDA programme (OJ 2005 S 203-199730).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-108/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/3

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-108/06)
   (2006/C 121/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and F. Simonetti, as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of certain plans and programs on the environment or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive in national law expired on 21 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.


title: Case C-229/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtsachen Wien by order of that court of 7 April 2003 in the case of Monika Herbstrith against Republic of Austria

text:
C 47/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
8.    Are the provisions of the EC Treaty founding state liability             does not provide in the event of irregular legislative
      under the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice where               measures (Paragraph 1 AHG — ‘in enforcement of the
      rights directly conferred on EC citizens by the EC Treaty                Laws ...’), also to be classified as a damages claim?
      are grossly and culpably infringed to be interpreted as
      meaning that relevant restrictions on state liability under
      the national legal order, or also on the basis of decisions        (1) Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The
      of national courts (in particular to the effect that claims            Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd
      for compensation in regard to foreign policy measures                  and Others [1996] ECR I-1029.
      are precluded), are in any event unlawful?                         (2) Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                  für Zivilrechtsachen Wien by order of that court of
für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that court of                     7 April 2003 in the case of Monika Herbstrith against
15 April 2003 in the case of Helmut Fröschl against                                              Republic of Austria
                        Republic of Austria
                                                                                (Case C-229/03)
                         (Case C-184/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/20)
                          (2004/C 47/19)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Zivilrechtsachen Wien (Regional civil court, Vienna) of 7 April
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für                   2003, received at the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a
Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Court for civil cases, Vienna)          preliminary ruling in the case of Monika Herbstrith against
of 15 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on 5 May                Republic of Austria on the following questions:
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Helmut Fröschl
against Republic of Austria on the following questions:                  1.    Is EU law concerning equal treatment of men and women
                                                                               at work, in particular Directive 76/207/EEC (1), directly
                                                                               applicable, so that, as to amount, a claim for compen-
1.    In 1998 was it contrary to then directly applicable                      sation under Paragraph 15(1) of the B-GBG may be
      Community law, in particular Articles 12, 43 and 49 of                   obtained to the full extent of the damage occasioned,
      the EC Treaty, to interpret Paragraph 373c(3)(a), (b) and                irrespective of any limitation under Austrian domestic
      (c) of the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (Trade Code, GewO                         legislation or, in the absence of any such direct applica-
      1994), BGBl No 194, in the version of BGBl No I 63/                      bility of EU law, is there a claim founded on state liability
      1997, and the Regulation of the Federal Minister for                     for compensation to the full extent of the damage?
      Economic Affairs on the grant of exemption from the
      prescribed proof of competence for nationals of Member
      States of the Agreement on the European Economic Area,             2.    In the assessment of claims in respect of the foregoing is
      BGBl No 775/1993, in such a way that a national                          the rule concerning the burden of proof in Article 4 of
      photographer is prohibited from exercising his trade                     Council Directive 97/80/EC (2) directly applicable and, if
      because the qualifications set out there for proof of                    so,
      competence have been acquired by him in Austria and
      not in another State of the EEA?                                         (a)   does that apply on the basis that an expert opinion
                                                                                within the meaning of Paragraph 22(1) of the B-
      If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:                                  GBG is sufficient for the purposes of attestation if it
                                                                                appears conclusively and unreservedly that there is
      According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice                      discrimination and it cannot be ruled out that such
      (e.g. Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 (1); Case C-453/                        discrimination arose for gender-related reasons, with
      99 (2)), is the payment of the costs which the plaintiff has                   the result that in the case giving rise to this reference
      to incur in domestic proceedings, including his recourse                       the opinion of the federal committee on equal
      to public law courts, in order to have a law contrary to                       treatment of 9 November 1998 satisfies this require-
      Community law set aside and for which national law                             ment
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 47/13
     (b) does that apply notwithstanding an opinion as                   4.   Does Community law also require the payment of
           mentioned above on the basis that where the                        damages for non-material loss?
           plaintiff proves or even where the plaintiff substan-
           tiates that in the filling of the post the applicant          5.   As a matter of Community law, is the national court
           preferred to the plaintiff was less well-qualified than            required of its own motion to order the payment of
           the plaintiff the rule of evidence under this directive            punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?
           comes into effect
     (c)   and on the basis that proof to the contrary may only          6.   Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
           be regarded as conclusive if it leads to the factual               for damages for breach of Articles 81 and 82 EC under
           finding that the candidate appointed was better                    Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with
           suited or that in actual fact a non-gender-related                 Community law?
           reason was the decisive factor in the appointment of
           a less well-suited candidate?                                 7.   As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the
                                                                              limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
                                                                              does time begin to run from the day on which the
(1) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.                                                      infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC was committed or
(2) OJ 1997 L 14, p. 6.                                                       the day on which that infringement came to an end?
                                                                         8.   Does Community law require national courts to disapply
                                                                              national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
                                                                              to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of
6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against
                      Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.
                         (Case C-438/03)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                                                                         guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of
                          (2004/C 47/21)                                 6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against
                                                                                Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-439/03)
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del guidice di
pace de Bitonto of 6 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 16 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                                      (2004/C 47/22)
case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni. on the
following questions:
1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Ufficio del guidice di
     in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
                                                                         pace de Bitonto of 6 October 2003, received at the Court
     Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) Lazio (Rome)
                                                                         Registry on 16 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
     of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
                                                                         case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni. on the
     full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
                                                                         following questions:
     particular of Articles 81 and 82 EC?
2.   Does an infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC imply an              1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
     obligation on the part of the person committing it to                    Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
     compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate                      in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
     that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?                 Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) Lazio (Rome)
                                                                              of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
3.   In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the                   full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
     restitution of sums charged in breach of Community                       particular of Articles 81 and 82 EC?
     rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of
     Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way              2.   Does an infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC imply an
     of punitive damages against those persons responsible                    obligation on the part of the person committing it to
     for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant                      compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate
     position?                                                                that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?


title: Case C-176/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 April 2011 — HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem d.d. Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na sreco in turizem d.d. v Bundesminister für Finanzen

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 April 2011 — HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem d.d. Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na sreco in turizem d.d. v Bundesminister für Finanzen
   (Case C-176/11)
   2011/C 226/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem d.d. Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na sreco in turizem d.d.

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Finanzen

      Question referred

   Is a rule of national law which permits the domestic advertising of casinos located outside the national territory only where the legal protection for gamblers in those foreign locations corresponds to the protection under domestic law compatible with the freedom to provide services?


title: Joined Cases T-314/04 and T-414/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Germany v Commission (European Regional Development Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Action for annulment — Act against which proceedings can be brought — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Germany v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-314/04 and T-414/04) (1)

   (European Regional Development Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Action for annulment - Act against which proceedings can be brought - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/78)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C.-D. Quassowski, Agent, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and L. Flynn, Agents)
   Re:
   Actions for annulment of the decisions contained in two letters of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the Commission of 17 May and 9 August 2004 sent to the applicant concerning reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund granted for the Objective 2 Programme 1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia and the Operational Programme Resider II North Rhine-Westphalia 1994-1999, and the refusal in consequence to pay the applicant the balances of EUR 5 488 569,24 and EUR 2 268 988,33 respectively.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and half of those incurred by the applicant. The applicant is to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-26/99: Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Garage Trabisco SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.4.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/21
protection of legitimate expectations and of the duty to            The complaint relates to the following conduct:
have inasmuch as he was refused promotion in 1998
despite the fact that, by virtue of his name having already
been entered on the list of officials most deserving of             Ð concertation between PSA and its concessionaires at
promotion in 1997, his entitlement to promotion should                   national and local level with a view to impeding
have been given priority over that of other officials.                   parallel imports;
                                                                    Ð obstruction of supplies by the exertion of pressure of
He also pleads infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff                foreign concessionaires to dissuade them from
Regulations, inasmuch as the appointing authority did not                supplying vehicles to end-users domiciled in France;
undertake, in a reasonable and duly justified way, an
examination of the comparative merits of the eligible
candidates.                                                         Ð use of the so-called model-year date' sales technique;
                                                                         and
                                                                    Ð the existence of measures accompanying so-called
                                                                         Balladur' State premiums.
                                                                    The applicant considers that the Commission failed, both
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Garage Trabisco                in its summary of the complaint and in the presentation of
SA against the Commission of the European Communities               its statement of reasons, with a view to justifying the lack
                                                                    of a sufficient Community interest, to demonstrate the
                       (Case T-26/99)                               partitioning of the markets and the obstruction of
                      (1999/C 100/40)                               supplies, such as the concerted efforts made to prevent
                                                                    access to the parallel imports market by the misuse of
                                                                    the national proedures. Consequently, the defendant
                                                                    institution has failed to fulfil its obligations relating to the
               (Language of the case: French)                       examination of complaints submitted in competition
                                                                    matters.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
1999 by Garage Trabisco SA, established at Cognac
(France), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
Paris Bar,with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.             Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Sigma Tecnologie
                                                                    di Rivestimento SRL against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-28/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 100/41)
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 16/                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
    17 November 1998;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
                                                                    1999 by Sigma Tecnologie di Rivestimento SRL, whose
                                                                    registered office is in Lonato (Italy), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  Aurelio Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and Massimo
                                                                    Merola, of the Rome Bar, with an adress for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er 51.
By its action, the applicant company contests the decision
of the Commission rejecting the complaint lodged by it
concerning the steps taken by the Peugeot Group (PSA)               The applicant claims that the Court should:
and certain of its concessionaires to impede its activities as
an independent agent/reseller, pursuant to an illegal
agreement between PSA and its concessionaires covering              Ð annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(1998) 3117
the whole of the territory of France.                                    final of 21 October 1998 (Case IV/35.691/E-4


title: Case T-543/15: Action brought on 18 September 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/36

         Action brought on 18 September 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA
   (Case T-543/15)
   (2015/C 406/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt), Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency concerning the inclusion of the company Oxea, based in Germany, as active substance supplier on the list provided by Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings; and

               —

               in light of the pending appeal before ECHA’s Appeal Board, stay proceedings in terms of Article 69, and in particular Article 69(d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, until such time as ECHA’s Appeal Board has decided on the admissibility of the Appeal before it.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants submit that, by allowing a company to be included on list provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in respect of a given substance, ECHA has failed to apply the law. Its failures in that regard are founded on the three following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that ECHA has misapplied the rules regarding the requirement that the company submit a complete dossier under Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in that ECHA has treated companies which were in the same situation differently.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 62, 63 and 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in that contrary to the requirements of this Regulation, ECHA has failed to ensure that there is a level playing field between those companies that have participated in the review programme of the give substance and those that have been free-riders.


title: Case C-393/99 and case C-394/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail, Tournai (Section de Mouscron) by judgment of that court of 5 October 1999 in the case of Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants against Claude Hervein and Hervillier SA and Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants against Guy Lorthiois and Comtexbel SA

text:
18.12.1999            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 366/21
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                  Action brought on 13 October 1999 by the Commission
Travail, Tournai (Section de Mouscron) by judgment of                  of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
that court of 5 October 1999 in the case of Institut                                                   lic
national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépen-
dants against Claude Hervein and Hervillier SA and
Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs                                      (Case C-397/99)
  indépendants against Guy Lorthiois and Comtexbel SA
                                                                                (1999/C 366/35)
              (Case C-393/99 and case C-394/99)
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                         (1999/C 366/34)                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       13 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                       munities, represented by Dimitris Triantafillos and Barry
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Doherty, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Travail, Tournai (Section de Mouscron) (Labour Court, Tournai,         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Mouscron section) of 5 October 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 13 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of                                                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
— Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs            — declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
    indépendants against Claude Hervein and Hervillier SA and              down all the measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Article 2(2) of Directive 96/2/EC (1) with regard to mobile
                                                                           and personal communications, in conjunction with the
— Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs                second and third paragraphs of Article 3a of Directive
    indépendants against Guy Lorthiois and Comtexbel SA                    90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecom-
                                                                           munications services, as amended by Directive 96/2/EC,
on the following questions.                                                the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under the Treaty and those directives;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1. Is Article 14c(l)b of Council Regulation No 1408/71 of
    14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
    to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to               Pleas in law and main arguments
    members of their families moving within the Community,
    as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
    No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (1) and Annex VII to Regu-               The Member States are required by the binding character of
    lation No 1408/71, to be declared invalid in the light of          the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
    Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty inasmuch as it provides           paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
    that persons who pursue an activity as employees in one            adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
    Member State and an activity as self-employed persons in           law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
    another Member State are subject to the legislation of both        and to communicate those measures immediately to the
    those Member States?                                               Commission.
2. Can that invalidity be relied on to call into question              Up until now the Hellenic Republic has not adopted the
    membership and contributions due under the provision               measures necessary in order to implement fully Article 2(2) of
    found to be invalid for periods which predate delivery of          Directive 96/2/EC and the second and third paragraphs of
    the judgment finding it to be invalid, except (if the answer       Article 3a of Directive 90/388/EEC, as amended by Directive
    is no) as regards workers or persons entitled under them           96/2/EC, which had to be implemented no later than 15 Febru-
    who have already brought legal proceedings or made an              ary 1996; it has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    equivalent claim under national law before that date?              Treaty and those directives.
(1) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                               (1) OJ No L 20 of 26.1.1996, p. 59.


title: Case T-643/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Dahllof v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/57

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Dahllof v Parliament
   (Case T-643/15)
   (2016/C 048/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Staffan Dahllof (Kastrup, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8678 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-8/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Auyantepui Corp. v EUIPO — Magda Rose (Mr Jones) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark Mr Jones — Earlier international figurative mark Jones — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Auyantepui Corp. v EUIPO — Magda Rose (Mr Jones)
   (Case T-8/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark Mr Jones - Earlier international figurative mark Jones - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 191/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Auyantepui Corp., SA (Panama, Panama) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Magda Rose GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2014 (Case R 49/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Magda Rose GmbH & Co. KG and Auyantepui Corp., SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Auyantepui Corp., SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case C-685/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron
   (Case C-685/13)
   2014/C 61/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgacom SA

      Defendant: Commune de Fléron

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of the Authorisation Directive, (1) and in particular Article 13 thereof pertaining to the methods of imposition of fees for rights of use for radiofrequencies and rights to install facilities on or under public or private property, preclude the imposition on mobile telecommunications operators by the communal administrative authorities of a Member State, by way of a municipal regulation, of a tax comprising a single and flat-rate fee of EUR 2 500 per pylon or mast, the fact giving rise to which is the presence of such pylon or mast on the territory of the commune on 1 January of the year of assessment, in the case where that tax does not represent remuneration and is motivated by budgetary and environmental objectives?

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).


title: Case C-199/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2009 — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2009 — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-199/09)
   2009/C 193/12
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schenker SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Question referred

   Must Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to an application for binding tariff information, binding information must be issued on identical goods, which share the same commercial denomination, article number or any other criterion which distinguishes or identifies the goods concerned?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.


title: Case C-426/06: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 21 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/31

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 21 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-426/06) (1)

   (2007/C 315/53)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case F-90/10: Action brought on 29 September 2010 — Florentiny v Parliament

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/36

         Action brought on 29 September 2010 — Florentiny v Parliament
   (Case F-90/10)
   2011/C 55/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-François Florentiny (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nielsen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AST6 in the 2009 promotion procedure.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 29 June 2010 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 24 November 2009, published on 2 December 2009, not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AST6 in the 2009 promotion procedure;

               —

               Indicate to the appointing authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions, in particular, classification in grade AST6, and that the promotion to grade AST6 must be backdated to the date on which it should have taken effect, namely 1 January 2009;

               —

               Award the applicant EUR 2 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-264/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Provincie Antwerpen v Mobistar NV

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Provincie Antwerpen v Mobistar NV
   (Case C-264/13)
   2013/C 207/46
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Provincie Antwerpen

      Respondent: Mobistar NV

      Question referred

   Must Article 6 and/or Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding a public authority of a Member State from being allowed to tax, for budgetary or other reasons, the economic activity of telecommunications operators which arises in the territory or a part thereof through the presence on public or private property of GSM masts, pylons or antennae which are used for that activity?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case T-272/11: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (Fitcoin) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Fitcoin — Earlier national, Community and international figurative marks coin — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (Fitcoin)
   (Case T-272/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Fitcoin - Earlier national, Community and international figurative marks coin - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 79/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Coin SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamiki Zoi AE (Athens, Greece)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2011 (Case R 1836/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Coin SpA and Dynamiki Zoi AE.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 February 2011 (Case R 1836/2010-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition as regards the ‘Clothing, including footwear and slippers’ in Class 25;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay a third of the costs incurred by Coin SpA;

               4.

               Orders Coin to bear two-thirds of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.