title: Case C-196/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Irinodikio Athinon by judgment of that court of 13 May 2002 in the case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepikinonion Elladas (OTE)

text:
C 169/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.7.2002
      (b) incorrectly or incompletely transposing into Austri-                  (a)   not transposing into Austrian law the obligation to
            an law the obligation imposed on the competent                            separate waste laid down in Article 2(4) of Council
            authorities by Article 13 of the directive to undertake                   Directive 91/689/EEC(1) of 12 December 1991 on
            appropriate periodic inspections of establishments                        hazardous waste, as amended (2), and
            and undertakings which carry out the operations
            referred to in Articles 9 to 12 of the directive, the               (b) not fully transposing the obligation on the auth-
            Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations                  orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections
            under Article 1(e) and (f) of the directive in conjunc-                   of producers of hazardous waste laid down in
            tion with Annexes II A and II B thereto and                               Article 4(1) of the directive, or the obligation on the
            Article 13 of the directive;                                              authorities to carry out inspections laid down in
                                                                                Article 5(2), the Republic of Austria has failed to
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                                 fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(4), 4(1) and
                                                                                5(2) of the directive;
                                                                          2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ laid down in                 There is no provision of Austrian law which clearly transposes
Article 1(e) and (f) in conjunction with Annexes II A and II B            the duty to separate mixed waste imposed by Article 2(4) of
of Directive 75/442/EEC are of central importance to the                  the directive.
uniform terminology of Community waste law and the
realisation of European waste policy. Under the legal pro-                In addition, the duty to carry out inspections prescribed by
visions in force in the Republic of Austria, terminology                  Austrian law relates only to those entities which collect and
inconsistent with that used in the directive is employed for the          handle hazardous waste, but does not extend to producers of
classification of operations which are regulated in Community             hazardous waste, as required by Directive 91/689/EEC. There
law by the definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’.                      is also no comprehensive obligation on the competent auth-
                                                                          orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections of estab-
                                                                          lishments and undertakings as required by Article 5(2) of the
In addition, the provisions in the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (the
                                                                          directive.
Austrian Trade Code of 1994) relating to industrial plants do
not adequately meet the requirements of Article 13 of the
directive, because those provisions do not provide that the               (1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
inspection must be carried out by the competent authorities.              (2) Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994, OJ L 168, 2.7.1994,
                                                                              p. 28.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Irinodikio
                                                                          Athinon by judgment of that court of 13 May 2002 in the
Action brought on 24 May 2002 by the Commission                           case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepiki-
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                              nonion Elladas (OTE)
                              Austria
                                                                                (Case C-196/02)
                         (Case C-194/02)                                                            (2002/C 169/47)
                         (2002/C 169/46)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Irinodikio Athinon
                                                                          (Small Claims Court, Athens) of 13 May 2002, received at the
                                                                          Court Registry on 27 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before              case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepikinonion
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 May                Elladas (OTE) on the following questions:
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,          1.    Are the existence and operation of a rule, such as, in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis                 the present case, Article 24a(2a) of the General Staff
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,                 Regulations of the Organismos Tilepikinonion Elladas
Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                          (OTE), under which it is laid down that (only) women
                                                                                are taken on as cleaners on employment contracts of
                                                                                indefinite duration for part-time or intermittent employ-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     ment, consistent with the requirements which arise from
                                                                                Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and Directives 117/75 and
1.    declare that by:                                                          207/76?
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/27
     Under the case-law of the Court of Justice, given that                 On the basis that part-time employment exclusively or
     reduced working hours are tied to reduced pay can the                  mainly affected women, can the provisions under which
     rule at issue be interpreted as automatically constituting             part-time employment is entirely excluded (until 1 Janu-
     direct discrimination on grounds of sex, since it immedi-              ary 1996) or taken into account in proportion to full-
     ately and directly ties part-time employment to the sex of             time employment (from 1 January 1996) be interpreted,
     the (female) employees and thus places only women at a                 in the light also of the case-law of the Court of Justice, as
     disadvantage?                                                          introducing indirect discrimination on grounds of sex
                                                                            prohibited under the rules of Community law and,
                                                                            consequently, should the entire period of part-time
                                                                            employment be added to their length of service?
2.   Does the exclusion of temporary part-time cleaners                5.   If the Court of Justice answers Questions 1 to 4 in the
     employed for an indefinite duration from the benefits of               affirmative, in the sense that the contested rules and
     the specific collective agreement of 2 November 1987                   provisions of collective agreements in fact contravene
     between OTE and the Omospondia Ergazomenon OTE                         Community law, who bears the burden of proof when
     (OTE Workers’ Federation) with regard to their incorpor-               employees plead that the principle of equal treatment has
     ation within the regular staff (and indeed irrespective of             been infringed to their detriment?
     the duration of the part-time employment contract), as in
     the present case, on the ground that that specific collective
     agreement required at least two years’ full-time service
     infringe Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and the abovemen-
     tioned directives or another rule of Community law,
     as indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, on the
     assumption that those rules (notwithstanding their osten-
     sibly neutral character since no link is made to the
     employees’ sex) excepted exclusively female cleaners,
     because no men worked part-time under a contract of
     indefinite duration either in the General Services Sector         Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the
     (to which cleaners belong) or in any other OTE staff                European Communities against the Republic of Austria
     sector?
                                                                                (Case C-209/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/48)
3.   When applying the specific collective agreement of
     10 May 1991 between OTE and the OTE Workers’
     Federation, OTE required temporary staff who were to
     become (probationary) members of the regular staff to
     have a contract of indefinite duration and to be employed         An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
     full-time.                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June
                                                                       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
     Does the exclusion of part-time cleaners (irrespective of         Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254,
     the duration of their contract), as in the present case,          Kirchberg.
     constitute impermissible, indirect discrimination on
     grounds of sex falling within provisions of Community
     law (Article 119 and Directives 75/117 and 76/207),
     given that the specific collective agreement excepted             The applicant claims that the Court should:
     exclusively female cleaners because no men worked part-
     time for an indefinite duration in any OTE staff sector?
                                                                       (a)  declare that, as a result of the fact that the proposed
                                                                            extension of the golf course in the municipality of
                                                                            Wörschach in Styria has been approved despite the
                                                                            negative results of the assessment of its impact on the
                                                                            natural habitat of the corncrake (Crex crex) in the special
4.   Under Article 5(9) of the General Staff Regulations                    protection area established there pursuant to Article 4 of
     of OTE, as in force until 1 January 1996, part-time                    Directive 79/409/EEC (1), the Republic of Austria has
     employment was not included at all when calculating                    failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(3)
     length of service for the purpose of determining better                and (4) in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Directive
     conditions of pay. Thereafter, from 1 January 1996, that               92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
     provision was amended by a specific collective agreement               natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2);
     and it was laid down that part-time employment is
     regarded as equivalent to half of an equal period of full-
     time employment.                                                  (b) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.


title: Case C-207/09: Order of the President of the Court of 7 December 2009 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 December 2009 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-207/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/54

      Language of the case: Slovak

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

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case C-226/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others (Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Appreciable restriction — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 3(2) — National competition authority — Practices which may affect trade between Member States — Proceedings and penalty — Market share thresholds of the de minimis notice not attained — Restrictions by object)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others
   (Case C-226/11) (1)

   (Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Appreciable restriction - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 3(2) - National competition authority - Practices which may affect trade between Member States - Proceedings and penalty - Market share thresholds of the de minimis notice not attained - Restrictions by object)
   2013/C 38/05
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Expedia Inc.

      Defendants: Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l'Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, VFE Commerce, IDTGV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Relationship between Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and national competition laws — Possibility for national courts and national competition authorities to bring proceedings and to impose penalties in respect of an agreement, decision or concerted practice which may affect trade between Member States but which does not exceed the market share thresholds laid down by the Commission — Agreement with an anti-competitive object.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 101(1) TFUE and 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 (EC) and 82 (EC) must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from applying Article 101(1) TFEU to an agreement between undertakings that may affect trade between Member States, but that does not reach the thresholds specified by the European Commission in its notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1), (EC) (de minimis), provided that that agreement constitutes an appreciable restriction of competition within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case C-481/15: Action brought on 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/16

         Action brought on 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-481/15)
   (2015/C 371/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 (1) and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:
   Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation require each Member State to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures.
   Germany fails to comply with that requirement.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (OJ 2008 L 97, p. 72), as amended by Commission Regulation No 18/2010 of 8 January 2010 (OJ 2010 L 7, p. 3).


title: Case T-30/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014  — Reagens v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for tin heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Duration of the infringement — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Basic amount — Mitigating circumstances — Ability to pay — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Unlimited jurisdiction — Appropriateness of the amount of the fine)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Reagens v Commission
   (Case T-30/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for tin heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Duration of the infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Basic amount - Mitigating circumstances - Ability to pay - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction - Appropriateness of the amount of the fine))
   2014/C 202/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reagens SpA (San Giorgio di Piano, Italy) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, L. Toffoletti, E. De Giorgi and D. Gullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Bourke, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Reagens SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-473/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France)) — Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières — TOS, Association OABA v Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables (Pollution and nuisance — Directive 96/61/EC — Annex I — Subheading 6.6(a) — Intensive rearing of poultry — Definition — Meaning of poultry — Maximum number of animals per installation)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France)) — Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières — TOS, Association OABA v Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables
   (Case C-473/07) (1)

   (Pollution and nuisance - Directive 96/61/EC - Annex I - Subheading 6.6(a) - Intensive rearing of poultry - Definition - Meaning of ‘poultry’ - Maximum number of animals per installation)
   (2009/C 69/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières — TOS, Association OABA

      Defendant: Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables

      Intervener: Association France Nature Environnement
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) — Scope ratione materiae of the directive — Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry with more than 40 000 places (subject to an authorisation requirement) (subheading 6.6(a) of Annex I to the directive) — Concepts of ‘poultry’ and ‘places’ — Whether quail, partridge and pigeon are included within the scope of the directive — If so, whether national legislation which gives weighting to the number of animals per place according to species is permissible
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The term ‘poultry’, which appears in subheading 6.6(a) of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as including quails, partridges and pigeons.

               2.

               Subheading 6.6(a) of Annex I to Directive 96/61, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which calculates the thresholds for authorisation of installations for intensive rearing on the basis of a system of ‘animal-equivalents’ founded on a weighting of animals by places according to species so that account may be taken of the amount of nitrogen actually excreted by the various bird species.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-460/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2012 — Scandic Distilleries SA v OHIM — Bürgerbräu, Röhm & Söhne (BÜRGER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BÜRGER — Earlier Community word mark Bürgerbräu — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2012 — Scandic Distilleries SA v OHIM — Bürgerbräu, Röhm & Söhne (BÜRGER)
      (Case T-460/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BÜRGER - Earlier Community word mark Bürgerbräu - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Scandic Distilleries SA (Bihor, Romania) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bürgerbräu, August Röhm & Söhne KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2011 (Case R 1962/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bürgerbräu, August Röhm & Söhne KG and Scandic Distilleries SA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Scandic Distilleries SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case C-172/13: Action brought on 5 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/3

         Action brought on 5 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-172/13)
   2013/C 207/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, R. Lyal, agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by imposing conditions on cross-border group relief that make it virtually impossible in practice to obtain such relief and by restricting such relief to periods after 1 April 2006, the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Areaorder United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

               —

               order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Following the judgment in Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer, the United Kingdom amended its legislation governing the manner in which the losses suffered by companies which are members of a group may be transferred and used by another member of the group in order to reduce its tax liability (group relief rules). The provisions governing losses of non-resident companies are now contained in Part 5 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.
   Under the United Kingdom legislation now in force, a group company may obtain a tax credit for the losses of a non-resident group member only if the latter has no possibility of relief in its State of residence. In relation to the possibility of future relief the United Kingdom legislation makes it virtually impossible to demonstrate compliance with that condition, since that possibility falls to be determined ‘as at the time immediately after the end’ of the tax year in which the loss was suffered. That condition is for all practical purposes impossible to meet. It follows that the legislation precludes any relief at all for the losses of a non-resident subsidiary, contrary to the freedom of establishment as interpreted in Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer.
   Secondly, the new rules on group relief for foreign losses apply only to losses suffered after 1 April 2006, the date of entry into force of those rules. That temporal limitation (that is to say, the exclusion of relief under the legislation for losses suffered before that date) is contrary to the freedom of establishment.


title: Case T-419/05: Action brought on  18 November 2005  — Bain and Others v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/36

         Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Bain and Others v Commission
   (Case T-419/05)
   (2006/C 48/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Neil Bain (Brussels, Belgium), Obhijit Chatterjee (Brussels, Belgium), Richard Fordham (Bergen, Netherlands) and Roger Hurst (Bergen, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the applicants' pay slips for the months of February, March and April 2005, and all subsequent pay slips, to the extent that they apply the unlawful provisions of Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, and of Regulation No 856/2004 fixing the new correction coefficients and Regulation No 31/2005 adjusting them;

               —

               as far as is necessary, annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 29 July 2005, rejecting the applicants' complaints (R/458.14/05, R/458.5/05, R/458.12/05 and R/458.2/05);

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs in the case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those relied on by the applicant in Case T-393/05.


title: Action brought on 28 September 1995 by Patrick Barraux, Klaus Kammerichs and Vittorino Tebaldi against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-177/95)

text:
No C 315/20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 11 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 28 September 1995 by Patrick Barraux,
                                                                      Klaus Kammerichs and Vittorino Tebaldi against the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
 I. The applicant complains of infringement of essential
                                                                                ( Case T- 177/95 )
procedural requirements . The applicant was not provided
with a translation into French, the language of the                                             ( 95/C 315/39 )
proceeding applicable in its case, of the minutes of the
hearing on 23 September 1993 . This constitutes an                                   (Language of the case: French)
infringement of Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 . It also
resulted at the same time in a restriction of the applicant's
ability to defend itself.                                             An action against the European Communities was brought
                                                                      before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 28 September 1995 by Patrick Barraux,
II . The agreement concluded on 8 October 1982 between                residing at Karlsruhe ( Germany ), Klaus Kammerichs,
the applicant and BASF L + F does not infringe Article 85(1 )         residing at Stutensee ( Germany ) and Vittorino Tebaldi ,
of the EC Treaty .                                                    residing at Marxzell-Burbach ( Germany ), represented by
                                                                      Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Veronique Leclerq
                                                                      and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
1 . The defendant could not have reached the contrary                 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
    conclusion were it not for the totally inadequate                 Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
    clarification of the circumstances . The conduct of the
    parties was caused by the supply problems existing                The applicants claim that the Court should :
    during the period in question and the need to ensure
    uniformity in the provision of supplies to all of the
    markets served by the applicant.                                  — annul the applicants ' pay slips for the period from 1 July
                                                                          to 31 December 1994 ,
2 . There is nothing in the wording of the Treaty, or the way         — order the defendant to pay the applicants the
    in which it is applied, which conflicts with that                     remuneration to which they are entitled, together with
    interpretation . In the light of the evolution of the Treaty,         default interest calculated at the annual rate of 8 % from
    and the way in which it is applied, the term 'pass on '               the date when the remuneration became due until the
    used in the agreement can only have meant that the                    date when it is paid,
    applicant was to keep BASF L + F informed about the
    flow of goods . That was a legally unobjectionable               — order the defendant to pay the costs .
    practice . The provision of such information was
    particularly indispensable in times of shortage, in order
    to ensure, as far as possible, uniformity of supply to the        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    different markets and to avoid a situation in which
    coach-building works switched to other competitors .              The applicants, three Commission officials employed in the
                                                                      Institute for Transuranic Elements, Karlsruhe, contest the
                                                                      reduction of their remuneration with retroactive effect in
3 . If the evidence submitted is interpreted in the light of          consequence of the entry into force of Council Regulation
    that background, it becomes clear that its overall                ( EC, ECSC, Euratom ) No 3161 /94 adjusting, with effect
    context supports the applicant's case : the conduct of the        from 1 July 1994, the remuneration and pensions of officials
    parties involved is due purely and solely to the shortage         and other servants of the European Communities and the
    situation and the problems arising from it . It cannot be        weightings applied thereto .
    attributed to any collusion .
                                                                     That Regulation, adopted in compliance with the judgment
                                                                      of 27 October 1994 in Case T-64/92 , in which the Court of
4 . Even if the agreement in question could be regarded as
    constituting an infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC        First Instance held that the Council was not empowered to
    Treaty, such infringement was negligible in its effects .         fix a weighting for Germany on the basis of the cost of living
    The part of the market which was affected by the Treaty           in a city other than the capital , provides in particular, in
    and by the single case of non-delivery was so minuscule          Article 6(1 ), for the fixing of a specific weighting applicable
    that there can be no question of market conditions               to the remuneration of officials employed at Karlsruhe .
    having been affected .
                                                                     The applicants plead, first of all , the illegality of the
                                                                      aforementioned Regulation, inasmuch as the power of the
5 . The defendant's assumption regarding the duration of              Council to prescribe weightings pursuant to Articles 64 and
    the agreement is untenable . Since there was in any event         65 of the Staff Regulations and Article 9 of Annex XI
    only one single case of refusal to supply, a distinction         thereto, which entails the obligation, in accordance with the
    should have been drawn in assessing the duration .                principle of equality of treatment between officials, to fix a
                                                                      specific weighting ' forthwith', may only be exercised in the
                                                                     event that an appreciable disparity is found to have arisen
                                                                      between the cost of living in a place of employment and the
                                                                     cost of living in the capital .
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 11 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 315 /21
Similarly, Article 65 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations provides        possible for potential candidates from other Community
that, in the event of a substantial change in the cost of living,    institutions to learn of the notice in question until after the
measures must be taken within two months to adjust the               time limit for the submission of applications had expired or,
weightings . Furthermore, the Community legislature has              at best, until a few hours before its expiry .
provided that the annual adjustment of remuneration must
be decided before the end of each year and must take effect          The applicant pleads :
from 1 July in that year . The legislature has thus permitted        — misuse of powers, together with breach of the principle
the Council to adjust the remuneration of officials only once            of equality of treatment and non-discrimination
in each year, if appropriate with retroactive effect . On the            between officials,
other hand , it has prescribed a particularly short time limit
for the adoption by the Council of the measures necessary in         — infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations ,
order to eliminate any variation between the purchasing                  inasmuch as, although the decision rejecting the
power of officials . According to the applicants, that degree            application of the applicant was taken on 5 December
of leeway is understandable, inasmuch as that adjustment                  1 994 , it was only communicated to him by the defendant
cannot, in accordance with Article 85 of the Staff                       institution by letter dated 10 February 1995 , which
Regulations, result in a reduction of remuneration .                     contained no statement of reasons whatever, which was
                                                                         stamped 13 February 1995 and which was not brought
Thus, by adopting the contested Regulation with retroactive              to the knowledge of the applicant until 16 February
effect, the Council has disregarded the principles of the                 1995 , and
protection of legitimate expectations, of equality of
treatment, of non-discrimination between officials and of            — infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations , in
established rights .                                                     that the appointing authority did not examine the
                                                                         comparative merits of the candidates, as it was required
                                                                         to do under that provision .
Action brought on 28 September 1995 by Santo Picciolo
            against the Committee of the Regions                     Action brought on 28 September 1995 by Giuseppe Calo
                        ( Case T-178/95 )                                          against the Committee of the Regions
                          ( 95/C 315/40 )                                                     ( Case T- 179/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 315/41 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Committee of the Regions was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           An action against the Committee of the Regions was
Communities on 28 September 1995 by Santo Picciolo ,                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
residing at Itzig ( Luxembourg), represented by Jean-Noel            Communities on 28 September 1995 by Giuseppe Calo,
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                   residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis ,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar,
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener .               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                     Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decisions rejecting the application of the
                                                                     — annul the decisions rejecting the application of the
     applicant for post Cdr/1/94 as Head ( A2 ) of the                    applicant for post Cdr/1 /94 as Head ( A2 ) of the
     Directorate for the Registry, Administration and the
                                                                          Directorate for the Registry, Administration and the
     Budget of the Committee of the Regions and appointing                Budget of the Committee of the Regions and appointing
     another person to that post,                                         another person to that post,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant, an official of the European Parliament,               The applicant, an official of the European Parliament,
 contests the manner in which the procedure for appointing a          contests the manner in which the procedure for appointing a
 Head of Administration and the Registry of the Committee             Head of Administration and the Registry of the Committee
 of the Regions has been conducted .                                  of the Regions has been conducted .
 He states that the notice of vacancy in respect of that              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
 appointment was drawn up by the service headed by the                in Case T-178 /95 Santo Picciolo v. Committee of the
 successful candidate , who was, moreover, chosen in                  Regions .
 advance . Because the time limit for the submission of
 applications was deliberately foreshortened, it was not


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2000 in Joined Cases T-101/98 and T-200/98 Gisela Stodtmeister v Council of the European Union (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Action for annulment — Absence of staff report — Action for compensation)

text:
C 316/22               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
Institute of the Environment at the Joint Research Centre                  owing to the absence of a staff report for the period 1993-
in Ispra (Italy), residing in Bodio-Lomnago, Varese (Italy),               1995 during the 1996 promotion procedure — the Court of
represented by G. Marchesini, a lawyer practising before the               First Instance, composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
Court of Cassation of the Italian Republic, with an address for            M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges: H. Jung, Registrar, has
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10                   delivered a judgment on 19 September 2000 in which it:
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and A. dal Ferro) — appli-
                                                                           1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for damages for pecuniary
cation for annulment of the Commission decision rejecting the
                                                                                harm in Case T-200/98;
applicant’s candidature for a Grade A post with the Institute of
the Environment at the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, the
annulment of the procedure calling for a show of interest used             2.    Orders the Council, in Case T-200/98, to pay the applicant
by the Commission to fill a temporary post at that Institute                     the sum of BEF 70 000 by way of compensation for the non-
and, in the alternative, annulment of the appointment of the                     pecuniary harm sustained by her;
candidate accepted chosen that procedure — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,                   3.    Dismisses the application for annulment in Case T-101/98;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 September 2000 in which it:                                             4.    Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay one half of
                                                                                those incurred by the applicant in Case T-200/98. The parties
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                      are to bear their own costs in Case T-101/98.
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.98 and C 86, 27.3.99.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                      of 13 September 2000
                     of 19 September 2000                                  in Case T-20/99: Denkavit Nederland BV v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Joined Cases T-101/98 and T-200/98 Gisela Stodtmei-
          ster v Council of the European Union (1)                         (Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to
                                                                           Commission documents — Inspection report — Exceptions
                                                                           relating to protection of the public interest (inspections and
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Action for annulment                              investigations) and of commercial secrecy)
   — Absence of staff report — Action for compensation)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/42)
                          (2000/C 316/41)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-20/99: Denkavit Nederland BV, established at
In Joined Cases T-101/98 and T-200/98: Gisela Stodtmeister,                Voorthuizen, Netherlands, represented by E.A. Buys, of the
an official of the Council of the European Union, residing in              Arnhem Bar, v Commission of the European Communities
Tervuren (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and                     (Agents: P. van Nuffel, U. Wölker and W. Wils) — application
L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in               for annulment of the Commission decision of 17 November
Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue                  1998 refusing to grant the applicant access to a report
Beck, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer              concerning measures taken to combat swine fever in the
and M.-G. Lalande) — application for annulment of the                      Netherlands — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
decision of the Council not to promote the applicant to                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and
Grade A 3 during the 1997 promotion procedure and, second,                 N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
damages for the harm allegedly sustained by the applicant                  13 September 2000, in which it:


title: Action brought on 21 February 1996 by Antonio Giannini against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-21/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/25
reasoning for its decision, thereby infringing Article 7 ( 3 ) of    He maintains, first, that, in view of his having been turned
Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC and Article 190 of the EC               down in favour of a candidate who did not meet the
Treaty.                                                              minimum requirements as to specific knowledge and
                                                                     experience, in disregard of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                     the appointment in issue was not in the interest of
                                                                     the service . Consequently, that appointment appears
                                                                     necessarily to be vitiated by misuse of powers.
                                                                     Moreover, there has been a breach of the principle of the
Action brought on 21 February 1996 by Antonio Giannini               protection of legitimate expectations, in that, contrary to
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 the Commission's current practice in such matters, the
                        ( Case T-21 /96 )                            description of the post to be filled contained a serious
                          ( 96/C 133/57)                             anomaly, since, by contrast with the descriptions normally
                                                                     given in respect of almost all posts advertised by the
                                                                     Commission, it made no reference to the tasks to be carried
                (Language of the case: French)                       out, nor to the qualifications needed for those tasks in terms
                                                                     of knowledge and experience. Is follows that, in the present
An action against the Commission of the European                     case, the Commission's conduct is compatible neither with
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    the aim of the vacancy notice, which is to provide interested
Instance of the European Communities on 21 February                  parties with detailed information concerning the
1996 by Antonio Giannini, residing in Brussels, represented          qualifications required in order to apply for the post in
by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo Locchi, of the Brussels Bar,            question, nor with the principle that officials must be able to
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers            rely on a practice regularly followed by the administrative
of Jeannot Biver, 7 Côte d'Eich.                                     authority.
                                                                     Lastly, the applicant pleads the commission in the present
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         case of a manifest error of appreciation, based on disregard
                                                                     of Articles 4, 29 ( 1 ) and 45 of the Staff Regulations and of
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting the                      the vacancy notice itself. In concrete terms, it is apparent
     applicant's application for post COM/151/94 , which             from an examination of the merits of the ultimately
     was notified to the applicant on 28 April 1995 ,                successful candidate that his application did not meet the
                                                                     minimum qualifications required by the vacancy notice . The
— annul the defendant's decision appointing another                  person in question has no experience in the negotiation or
     candidate to the grade A3 post of Head of Unit DG I.D.l         management of international agreements relating to textiles.
     'Negotiation and management of textile agreements;              Nor does he possess the knowledge needed in order to
     clothing and other industries' pursuant to vacancy              accomplish the tasks entrusted to that unit. It follows that
     notice COM/151 /94, which was brought to the                    the appointing authority exceeded the parameters of the
     applicant's knowledge on 3 May 1995 ,                           said vacancy notice .
— annul the decision rejecting the complaint submitted by
     the applicant on 25 July 1995 , which was brought to his
     knowledge on 3 May 1995 ,
— order the defendant to pay the applicant ECU 5 000 by              Action brought on 27 February 1996 by Eisa De Persio
     way of compensation for the non-material damage                     against Commission of the European Communities
     suffered by him, subject to increase or decrease during                                  ( Case T-23/96 )
     the course of the proceedings,
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/58 )
— order the defendant to pay the applicant ECU 15 000 by
     way of compensation for the economic damage suffered                           (Language of the case: Italian)
     by him, subject to increase or decrease during the course
     of the proceedings,                                             An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .                      Instance on 27 February 1996 by Eisa De Persio, an official
                                                                     of the Commission of the European Communities,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      represented by Giovanni Petroni and Franco Giampietro, of
                                                                     the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the chambers of Gilles Bounéou, 15 Avenue du Bois .
The applicant, a grade A4 Commission official, contests the
rejection of his application for the grade A3 post of Head of
Unit DG I.D.l 'Negotiation and management of textile                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
agreements; clothing and other industries', particularly in
the light of the vacancy notice on the basis of which the post       — declare unlawful the ousting of the applicant from her
in question was filled .                                                 duties and the pressure and intimidation intended to


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 30 April 1998 in Case C-47/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Richmond Magistrates' Court): criminal proceedings against E. Clarke & Sons (Coaches) Ltd and D. J. Ferne (Social legislation relating to road transport - Compulsory use of a tachograph - Exemption for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered does not exceed 50 km)

text:
C 209/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,             airport to a hotel with a stop, on occasions, at a tourist
J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate             attraction, where the precise route to be taken is not
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has         predetermined, does not constitute a regular service within
given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:          the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 3820/85 of
                                                                   20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social
                                                                   legislation relating to road transport.
Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
                                                                   (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning
that, if national legislation has maintained a different
pensionable age for male and female workers, the Member
State concerned is entitled to calculate the amount of
pension differently depending on the worker's sex.
(1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 May 1998
                                                                   in Case C-157/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                   the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
                                                                   Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and
                                                                   Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte: National
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 Farmers' Union and Others (1)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                   (Agriculture Ð Animal health Ð Emergency measures
                       of 30 April 1998                            against bovine spongiform encephalopathy Ð Mad cow
                                                                                disease')
in Case C-47/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Richmond Magistrates' Court): criminal proceedings                                          (98/C 209/16)
against E. Clarke & Sons (Coaches) Ltd and D. J. Ferne (1)
(Social legislation relating to road transport Ð
Compulsory use of a tachograph Ð Exemption for
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular
  services where the route covered does not exceed 50 km)
                         (98/C 209/15)
                                                                   In Case C-157/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
               (Language of the case: English)                     Bench Division (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                   in the proceedings pending before that court between the
                                                                   Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
                                                                   and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte:
In Case C-47/97: reference to the Court under Article 177          National Farmers' Union, David Burnett and Sons Ltd,
of the EC Treaty from Richmond Magistrates' Court                  R. S. and E. Wright Ltd, Anglo Beef Processors Ltd,
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal          United Kingdom Genetics, Wyjac Calves Ltd, International
proceedings pending before that court against E. Clarke &          Traders Ferry Ltd, MFP International Ltd, Interstate Truck
Sons (Coaches) Ltd and D. J. Ferne Ð on the                        Rental Ltd, Vian Exports Ltd, interveners: Anglo Dutch
interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC)            Meat Exports Ltd, Beck Food Group Ltd, First City
No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the                 Trading Ltd, Weddel Swift Ltd, Carrex August Ltd,
international carriage of passengers by coach and bus              Meatal Supplies (Wholesale Meats) Ltd, Meat Marketing
(OJ L 74 of 20.3.1992, p. 1), and of Article 4(3) of               Services (UK) Ltd, NWL (Ireland) Ltd, Hibernia Foods
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December                 plc, Duggins Ltd (D.T.), Swallow Foods International Ltd,
1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation            British Association of Sheep Exporters Ð on the validity
relating to road transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1)          of Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of
Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet              27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against
(President of the Chamber), P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.            bovine spongiform encephalopathy (OJ L 78 of 20.3.1996,
Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,             p. 47) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.
30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                              Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
                                                                   Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,
                                                                   D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
A passenger transport service, supplied on a number of             L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
occasions pursuant to a block reservation made by a tour           General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
operator and providing for a single journey from an                given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in which it has ruled:


C 72/14                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.3.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                      necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                      conclusions of the Commission.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                      (1) OJ L 157, 24.6.1994, p. 33.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                      (2) OJ L 43, 20.2.1979, p. 20.
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1995
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3).                                    Removal from the register of Case C-276/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/28)
                                                                      By order of 10 November 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 29 January 1998 by the Commission of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register
             the European Communities v. Ireland                      of Case C-276/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                          (Case C-26/98)
                           (98/C 72/27)                               (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 January 1998
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hans Christian Stùvlbñk, a member of its
Legal Service, and Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-170/97 (1)
seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for                                   (98/C 72/29)
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                           removal from the register of Case C-170/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Ð declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations             (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/26/EC (1) of 15 June 1994 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC (2) of
     6 February 1979 on the approximation of the laws of
     the Member States concerning electrical equipment for
     use in potentially explosive atmospheres employing
     certain types of protection, or by failing to adopt the
     measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has                      Removal from the register of Case C-171/97 (1)
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
                                                                                (98/C 72/30)
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   removal from the register of Case C-171/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 31 March


title: Case T -148/06: Action brought on 26 May 2006 — Marie Claire v OHIM — Marie Claire Album (MARIE CLAIRE)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/23

         Action brought on 26 May 2006 — Marie Claire v OHIM — Marie Claire Album (MARIE CLAIRE)
   (Case T -148/06)
   (2006/C 190/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie Claire (Castellón, Spain) (represented by: T. Fernández Mateos and T. Marín Bataller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Marie Claire Album SA.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 6 March 2006 in Case R-530/2004-2;

               —

               declare, accordingly, that the Community trade mark applied for is not caught by the prohibitions in Article 8(5)CMR 40/94, since such provisions do not apply to this case;

               —

               declare that the Community trade mark applied for, No 77.834 ‘MARIE CLAIRE’, does not take unfair advantage or is not detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier opposing mark without due cause;

               —

               declare that the prohibitions in Article 8(1)(b) CMR 40/94 are not applicable to the Community trade mark applied for, as already held in both the decision of the Opposition Division and the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               —

               allow registration of Community trade mark No 77.834 ‘MARIE CLAIRE’ in order to distinguish ‘Swimwear; lingerie and underwear’, in Class 25 of the International Classification, for the benefit of the applicant;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs together with any party which appears as a third party to these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Marie Claire.
   Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘MARIE CLAIRE’ for goods in Class 25 — application No 2 389 567.
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Marie Claire Album SA.
   Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word and figurative marks ‘MARIE CLAIRE’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 24-28, 41 and 42.
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division decision annulled and opposition upheld.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-252/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 29 May 2007 — Intel Corporation Inc. v CPM United Kingdom Limited

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 29 May 2007 — Intel Corporation Inc. v CPM United Kingdom Limited
   (Case C-252/07)
   (2007/C 183/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc.

      Defendant: CPM United Kingdom Limited
   Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Art 4(4)(a) of the First Council Directive 89/104 of 21st December 1988 (1), where:

                           (a)

                           the earlier mark has a huge reputation for certain specific types of goods or services,

                           (b)

                           those goods or services are dissimilar or dissimilar to a substantial degree to the goods or services of the later mark,

                           (c)

                           the earlier mark is unique in respect of any goods or services,

                           (d)

                           the earlier mark would be brought to mind by the average consumer when he or she encounters the later mark used for the services of the later mark,

                     are those facts sufficient in themselves to establish (i) ‘a link’ within the meaning of paragraphs [29] & [30] of Adidas-Salomon AG v. Fitnessworld Trading Ltd, Case C-408/01, [2003] ECR I-12537 and/or (ii) unfair advantage and/or detriment within the meaning of that Article?

               2.

               If no, what factors is the national court to take into account in deciding whether such is sufficient? Specifically, in the global appreciation to determine whether there is a ‘link’, what significance is to be attached to the goods or services in the specification of the later mark?

               3.

               In the context of Art 4(4)(a), what is required in order to satisfy the condition of detriment to distinctive character? Specifically, does (i) the earlier mark have to be unique, (ii) is a first conflicting use sufficient to establish detriment to distinctive character and (iii) does the element of detriment to distinctive character of the earlier mark require an effect on the economic behaviour of the consumer?

      (1)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.


title: Case T-341/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Francisco Javier Rémon Galar against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.3.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/29
Action brought on 26 November 1999 by V.O.F. Achten                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         — annul the Commission’s decision refusing to annul, on
                                                                             account of sickness, the annual leave taken by the applicant
                        (Case T-339/99)                                      from 4 August 1988 to 1 September 1988;
                         (2000/C 63/57)                                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         The applicant contests the Commission’s decision refusing to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                allow him to recoup all of the days of leave corresponding to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               the period covered by the medical certificates produced by
European Communities on 26 November 1999 by                              him to prove that he was absent on account of sickness whilst
V.O.F. Achten, of Arcen (Netherlands), represented by                    he was on leave.
M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.
                                                                         He asserts, first, that the Commission challenged the medical
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              certificates produced without undertaking a medical examin-
                                                                         ation to check the validity of each of them, thereby disregarding
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)             the provisions of Article 59(1) and (3) of the Staff Regulations
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                  of officials.
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;                                                             He further considers that the Commission has failed to comply
                                                                         with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons and to
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                               observe the principle of the right to a fair hearing, inasmuch
                                                                         as it has provided no medical information enabling the
                                                                         applicant or his doctor to understand and, where appropriate,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          to rebut the reasons which prompted the institution’s medical
                                                                         officer to challenge the certificate of 4 August 1998, which
                                                                         was the only one in respect of which a medical examination
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases             was carried out to check its validity.
T-273/99 to T-278/99.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         Action brought on 2 December 1999 by Harbinger
                                                                         Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-345/99)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Francisco Javier
Rémon Galar against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (2000/C 63/59)
                          Communities
                        (Case T-341/99)                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                         (2000/C 63/58)                                  An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                         Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities on 2 December 1999 by
                                                                         Harbinger Corporation, a corporation having its registered
                   (Language of the case: French)                        office in the USA, represented by Robert Collin and Mary-Clau-
                                                                         de Mitchell, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 avenue Marie-Thérèse.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 December 1999 by Francisco                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Javier Rémon Galar, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                — reverse the Board of Appeal’s decision in that it concluded
Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   that the trade mark did not comply with the provisions of
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4              Article 7, paragraph 1, subparagraph b of Regulation
Rue Beck.                                                                    No 40/94;


title: Case T-649/14: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v EUIPO — Schütz (X-Windwerk) (EU trade mark — Appointment of a new representative — Failure to act on the part of the applicant — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/47

         Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v EUIPO — Schütz (X-Windwerk)
   (Case T-649/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Appointment of a new representative - Failure to act on the part of the applicant - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 283/73)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Mach and W. Plewinski, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Schütz GmbH & Co. KGaA (Selters, Germany) (represented by: D. Oerter and E. Tuchscherer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2014 (Case R 978/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Schütz and NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Schütz GmbH & Co. KGaA.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case C-533/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, United Kingdom) — O2 Holdings Limited, O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchison 3G UK Limited (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1) — Exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor — Use of a sign identical with, or similar to, a mark in a comparative advertisement — Limitation of the effects of a trade mark — Comparative advertising — Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Article 3a(1) — Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted — Use of a competitor's trade mark or of a sign similar to that mark)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, United Kingdom) — O2 Holdings Limited, O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchison 3G UK Limited
   (Case C-533/06) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1) - Exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor - Use of a sign identical with, or similar to, a mark in a comparative advertisement - Limitation of the effects of a trade mark - Comparative advertising - Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC - Article 3a(1) - Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted - Use of a competitor's trade mark or of a sign similar to that mark)
   (2008/C 209/12)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: O2 Holdings Limited, O2 (UK) Limited

      Defendant: Hutchison 3G UK Limited
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) and Article 3a of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17) — Use of a competitor's trade mark in an advertisement for the purposes of comparing the characteristics of the goods or services sold by the advertiser with those of the competitor
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(1) and (2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, must be interpreted to the effect that the proprietor of a registered trade mark is not entitled to prevent the use by a third party of a sign identical with, or similar to, his mark, in a comparative advertisement which satisfies all the conditions, laid down in Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, under which comparative advertising is permitted.
               However, where the conditions required in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 to prevent the use of a sign identical with, or similar to, a registered trade mark are met, a comparative advertisement in which that sign is used cannot satisfy the condition, laid down in Article 3a(1)(d) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, under which comparative advertising is permitted.

               2.

               Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 is to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a registered trade mark is not entitled to prevent the use by a third party, in a comparative advertisement, of a sign similar to that mark in relation to goods or services identical with, or similar to, those for which that mark was registered where such use does not give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, and that is so irrespective of whether or not the comparative advertisement satisfies all the conditions laid down in Article 3a of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, under which comparative advertising is permitted

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-616/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/17

         Action brought on 20 November 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-616/15)
   (2016/C 098/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by restricting, to groups whose members exercise a limited number of professions, the exemption from VAT for the supply by independent groups of persons carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT, or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, of services to their members for the direct purposes of the exercise of that activity where those groups merely claim from their members exact reimbursement of their share of the joint expenses, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT directive; (1)

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following:
   Germany restricts to certain well-defined professions the exemption from VAT for the supply of services by independent groups of persons carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT, or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, for the direct purposes of the exercise of that activity. The exemption under the German law on VAT covers solely groups whose members are either doctors or health professionals and hospitals or establishments similar to hospitals.
   This is incompatible with Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. Neither the wording, purpose, nor preparatory work leading to the adoption of Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC justifies such a restriction of the exemption from VAT to groups from certain professions. The exemption should, however, apply to groups from all professions provided that they exercise tax-exempt professions.
   The restriction under the German law on VAT is also not justified by a potential general distortion of competition. This is because, as far as tax exemptions are concerned, the presence or absence of a distortion of competition can only apply with regard to the specific facts of a given case. Distortions of competition cannot be assessed in the abstract for certain professions of a group and services provided in connection with those professions.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-166/08: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Büdingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Guido Weber (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs — Right of those subject to inspection to obtain a second opinion — Concept of person subject to inspection)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/15

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Büdingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Guido Weber
   (Case C-166/08) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/397/EEC - Official control of foodstuffs - Right of those subject to inspection to obtain a second opinion - Concept of person subject to inspection)
   2009/C 205/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Büdingen

      Criminal proceedings against

   Guido Weber

      Action

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Büdingen — Interpretation of the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23) — Right of those subject to inspection to obtain a second opinion when an official control of foodstuffs is being carried out — Question whether a person liable under criminal or administrative law for the condition and labelling of a foodstuff is a person ‘subject to inspection’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs is to be interpreted as meaning that a company which has imported and then marketed a foodstuff and whose manager, on the basis of the analysis of samples of that product taken in the retail trade, is to be held responsible by the prosecuting authorities for the condition and labelling of that product in proceedings relating to the imposition of criminal penalties or administrative fines, is to be considered a person ‘subject to inspection’ for the purposes of those provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.07.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 June 1995 in Case T-31/91: Solvay SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition P Market sharing agreement P Commission's Rules of Procedure P Authentication of a decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)

text:
12 . 8 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208 /21
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Decision 91 /298/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
                          of 29 June 1995                               proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
                                                                        ( IV/33.133-B : Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK) ( 2 ), the Court of
in Case T-30/91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European               First Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended
                          Communities ( x )                             composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President,
(Competition — Concerted practice — Presumption of                      and D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
innocence — Administrative procedure — Rights of the                    Kalogeropoulos , Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
       defence — Equality of arms — Access to the file)                 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
                            ( 95/C 208/44 )
                                                                        1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /298/EEC of
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.133-B : SodaLash —
                                                                               Solvay, CFK), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
In Case T-30/91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
established in Brussels , represented by Lucien Simont,                 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address             í 1 ) OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 16 .
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe , v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
Decision 91 /297/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
( IV/33.133-A : Soda-ash — Solvay, ICI ) ( 2 ) the Court of First
Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended composition ),              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and D. P. M.                                           of 29 June 1995
Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,              in Case T-32/91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European
Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June                                       Communities ( 1 )
1995 , in which it:
                                                                        (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —
                                                                        Commission 's Rules of Procedure — Authentication of a
1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /297/EEC of
      19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)
      Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (1V/33.133-A: Soda-ash —                                          ( 95 /C 208 /46 )
      Solvay, ICI), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        In Case T-32/91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
(M OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .                                        established in Brussels, represented by Lucien Simont,
( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
                                                                        Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
                                                                        Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
                                                                        Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Decision 91 /299/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
                          of 29 June 1995                               proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty
in Case T-31 /91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European              ( IV/33.133-C : Soda-ash — Solvay ) ( 2 ), the Court of First
                          Communities (')                               Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended composition ),
                                                                        composed of: J.L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and D.P.M.
 (Competition — Market sharing agreement —                              Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,
 Commission 's Rules of Procedure — Authentication of a
                                                                        Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June
      decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)                  1995 , in which it:
                             ( 95/C 208/45 )
                                                                         1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /299/EEC of
                 (Language of the case: French)                                19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.133-C: Soda-ash —
                                                                               Solvay);
In Case T-31 /91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
established in Brussels, represented by Lucien Simont,
Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
                                                                        2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                     (') OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 21 .
Communities (Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission