title: Judgment of the Court of 11 February 2003 In Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerich Köln and Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Veurne): Hüseyin Gözütok (C-187/01) and Klaus Brügge (C-385/01) (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne bis in idem principle — Scope — Decisions by which the Public Prosecutor definitively discontinues criminal proceedings, without the involvement of a court, once the accused has satisfied certain conditions)

text:
5.4.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 83/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       involvement of a court, once the accused has fulfilled certain
                                                                             obligations and, in particular, has paid a certain sum of money
                                                                             determined by the Public Prosecutor.
                       of 11 February 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001, OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
In Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerich Köln and
Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Veurne): Hüseyin Gözütok
         (C-187/01) and Klaus Brügge (C-385/01) (1)
(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
bis in idem principle — Scope — Decisions by which the
Public Prosecutor definitively discontinues criminal proceed-
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
ings, without the involvement of a court, once the accused
                 has satisfied certain conditions)
                                                                                of 13 February 2003
                          (2003/C 83/08)                                     in Case C-85/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
             (Languages of the case: German and Dutch)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to implement Directive 91/439/EC)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                        (2003/C 83/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01: References to the                                         in the European Court Reports)
Court under Article 35 EU by the Oberlandesgericht Köln
(Germany) and the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Veurne
(Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
before those courts against Hüseyin Gözütok (C-187/01) and                   In Case C-85/02, Commission of the European Communities
Klaus Brügge (C-385/01), on the interpretation of Article 54                 (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v French Republic (Agents: G. de
of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of                     Bergues and S. Pailler): Application for a declaration that, by
14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the                    failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany                      provisions to implement point 12 of Annex II to Council
and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at                Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ
their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19), signed on                       1991 L 237, p. 1), and in any event by failing to notify the
19 June 1990 at Schengen (Luxembourg), the Court, composed                   Commission of such provisions, the French Republic has failed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,                    to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Second
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-                    Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
mans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,                    of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                    on 13 February 2003, in which it:
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 2003, in
which it has ruled:                                                          1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with point 12 of
                                                                                Annex II to Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991
                                                                                on driving licences within the prescribed period, the French
The ne bis in idem principle, laid down in Article 54 of the
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985
between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic
Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on            2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on
19 June 1990 at Schengen, also applies to procedures whereby
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
further prosecution is barred, such as the procedures at issue in the
main actions, by which the Public Prosecutor of a Member State
discontinues criminal proceedings brought in that State, without the


title: Case T-638/16: Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/48

         Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe)
   (Case T-638/16)
   (2016/C 392/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States of America)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU position mark (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe) — Application No 10 263 895

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision so that the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 December 2014 is annulled, opposition B 001919210 accepted and EU trade mark application No 10 263 895 rejected;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Rules 19(2) and 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, Articles 151(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009, and the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity.


title: Case T-685/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark B2B SOLUTIONS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS)
   (Case T-685/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark B2B SOLUTIONS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 256/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 (case R 244/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign B2B SOLUTIONS as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case C-137/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Van Gennip BVBA and Others

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Van Gennip BVBA and Others
   (Case C-137/17)
   (2017/C 178/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   Van Gennip BVBA, Antonius Johannes Maria ten Velde, Original BVBA, Antonius Cornelius Ignatius Maria van der Schoot

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the following infringements of the Belgian legislation on pyrotechnic articles qualify as ‘serious infringements’ within the meaning of Article 45 of Directive 2013/29/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles:

                           (a)

                           the sale of pyrotechnic articles in the amount of 2,666 kg of pyrotechnic composition, being an infringement of Articles 265(7) and 257 of the Royal Decree of 23 September 1958 laying down general rules on the manufacture, storage, detention, sale, transport and use of explosives, which prohibits the sale of pyrotechnic articles in quantities exceeding 1 kg of pyrotechnic composition, if the consumer is not in possession an individually-obtained administrative authorisation to hold a larger quantity of pyrotechnic articles;

                           (b)

                           the exceeding of the determined storage limit and the non-compliance with the storage locations indicated in a federal fireworks authorisation, even though a regional environmental permit had already been issued for the storage of the actual higher quantities in question, in the locations in question;

                           (c)

                           the very temporary storage of extremely small quantities of pyrotechnic articles in various locations not specifically authorised for storage, on the premises of an establishment for the retail sale of pyrotechnic articles, possessing both a federal fireworks authorisation and a regional environmental permit?

               2.

               Does the principle of the free movement of pyrotechnic articles, as laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 2007/23/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles (now Article 4(1) of Directive 2013/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles), read in conjunction, if necessary, with Article 10 of Directive 2006/123/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, preclude national legislation which makes the storage of directive-compliant pyrotechnic articles associated with the retail trade subject to the twofold requirement of possessing (i) an authorisation granted pursuant to the legislation governing the manufacture, storage, holding, sale, transport and use of explosives, and (ii) an authorisation granted under the legislation on environmental authorisations for nuisance-causing structures, when both authorisation regimes essentially have the same objective (the preventive assessment of safety risks), and one of those two authorisation regimes (in this case, that relating to explosives) sets a (very) low maximum threshold for the storage of party fireworks (in the amount of 50 kg of pyrotechnic composition (that is, the active substance))?

               3.

               Does the principle of the free movement of pyrotechnic articles, as laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2013/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles and Article 6(2) of Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles (read together, if necessary, with Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, preclude national legislation which prohibits party fireworks (fireworks from categories 2 and 3 [as set out in Article 3(1)(a)] of Directive 2007/23/EC) containing more than 1 kg of pyrotechnic composition from being held or used by, or sold to, consumers?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 178, p. 27.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 154, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-303/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Voghera): Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Stradella (Technical standards and regulations — Directive 98/34/EC — Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — Non-biodegradable cotton buds)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-303/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Voghera): Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Stradella (1)

   (Technical standards and regulations - Directive 98/34/EC - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Non-biodegradable cotton buds)
   (2005/C 281/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-303/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Voghera (District Court of Voghera) (Italy), made by decision of 1 July 2004, received at the Court on 16 July 2004, in the proceedings between Lidl Italia Srl and Comune di Stradella — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a national legislative provision such as Article 19 of Law No 93 of 23 March 2001 on the environment constitutes a technical regulation to the extent to which it includes a prohibition on the marketing of cotton buds which are not manufactured from biodegradable materials in accordance with a national standard.

               2.

               The first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision which constitutes a technical regulation, such as Article 19 of Law No 93 of 23 March 2001, must be notified to the Commission of the European Communities prior to its adoption.

               3.

               The first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that the national courts may refuse to apply a national legal provision constituting a technical regulation, such as Article 19 of Law No 93/2001 of 23 March 2001, if it has not been notified to the Commission of the European Communities prior to its adoption.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.


title: Case C-335/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 June 2017 — Neli Valcheva v Georgios Babanarakis

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 June 2017 — Neli Valcheva v Georgios Babanarakis
   (Case C-335/17)
   (2017/C 269/15)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven kasatsionen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Neli Valcheva

      Defendant: Georgios Babanarakis

      Question referred

   Is the concept of ‘rights of access’ used in Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility to be interpreted as encompassing not only access between the parents and the child but also the child’s access to relatives other than the parents, that is to say the grandparents?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case C-6/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2013 by IDT Biologika GmbH against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/14

         Appeal brought on 4 January 2013 by IDT Biologika GmbH against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-6/13 P)
   2013/C 108/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: IDT Biologika GmbH (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012, served on the applicant/appellant by fax on 26 October 2012;

               —

               annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 1 September 2010 rejecting the tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 by IDT Biologika GmbH in response to the call for tenders (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Supply of the Republic of Serbia, and awarding the contract to a consortium of various firms led by ‘Bioveta a.s.’;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in dismissing the appellant’s application.
   The discretion to be exercised by the respondent European Commission in the context of the tendering procedure at issue was — from a factual and technical aspect — not exercised in such a way as to be unimpeachable.
   In particular, the General Court erroneously assumed that Bioveta a.s. had, in the tendering procedure, furnished proof of the safety of the product offered by means of corresponding national authorisations, and that separate tests on primates in order to prove the non-virulence to humans of the product offered were not required.
   Moreover, Bioveta a.s. has not provided proof that its vaccine is based not on the original but on a modified SAD-Bern virus strain.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2002 in Case C-258/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Identification of waters affected by pollution — Designation of vulnerable zones)

text:
10.8.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 191/5
2.    Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50, precludes              1.    Dismisses the action;
      national legislation from limiting review of the legality of the
      withdrawal of an invitation to tender to mere examination of
                                                                              2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      whether it was arbitrary.
3.    Determination of the time to be taken into consideration for
      assessing the legality of the decision by the contracting authority     (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
      to withdraw an invitation to tender is a matter for national
      law, provided that the relevant national rules are not less
      favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and
      that they do not make it practically impossible or excessively
      difficult to exercise rights conferred by Community law.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 June 2002
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 18 June 2002                                   in Case C-258/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-242/00: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)                            (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC —
                                                                              Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
                                                                              from agricultural sources — Identification of waters affected
(State aid — Proposed aid — Commission decision holding                              by pollution — Designation of vulnerable zones)
aid to be compatible with the common market — Measure
not having an adverse effect — Regional aid — Definition
                           of eligible regions)                                                         (2002/C 191/08)
                            (2002/C 191/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-258/00, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-242/00, Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                         (Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agent: J.-F. Dobelle and
W.-D. Plessing, assisted by R. M. Bierwagen) v Commission of                  D. Colas, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues and D. Colas),
the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and                         supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde):
J. Macdonald Flett): Application for the annulment of Com-                    Application for a declaration that, by failing to take the
mission Decision 2001/272/EC of 14 March 2000 on the                          appropriate steps to identify waters affected by pollution
redefinition of assisted areas under the joint Federal Govern-                and, consequently, to designate the corresponding vulnerable
ment/Länder scheme for improving regional economic struc-                     zones, in accordance with Article 3 of and Annex I to Council
tures in Germany for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 Decem-                   Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
ber 2003 — West Germany and Berlin (OJ 2001 L 97, p. 27),                     protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                  agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the French Republic
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and C.W.A. Timmer-                      President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,
mans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal               R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
18 June 2002, in which it has ruled:                                          has given a judgment on 27 June 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/6                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.8.2002
1.     Declares that, by failing to take the appropriate steps to identify     1.    Dismisses the appeal;
       waters affected by pollution and, consequently, to designate the
       corresponding vulnerable zones, in accordance with Article 3 of         2.    Orders Ms Simon to pay the costs.
       and Annex I to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December
       1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
       caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, the French Republic       (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;
3.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 June 2002
                                                                               in Case C-287/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                             (Sixth Chamber)                                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
                                                                               VAT Directive — Articles 2(1) and 13(A)(1)(i) — Research
                                                                               activities of public-sector higher-education establishments
                             of 27 June 2002                                             carried out for consideration — Exemption)
in Case C-274/00 P: Odette Simon v Commission of the                                                       (2002/C 191/10)
                     European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Appeal — Officials — Person claiming the status of a
member of the temporary staff — Application brought out
of time — Inadmissibility of application — Appeal in part                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
 manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)                                          in the European Court Reports)
                             (2002/C 191/09)
                                                                               In Case C-287/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               (Agents: G. Wilms and K. Gross) v Federal Republic of Germany
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and T. Jürgensen): Application for
                                                                               a declaration that, by exempting from value added tax the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         research activities of public-sector higher-education establish-
                     in the European Court Reports)                            ments pursuant to Paragraph 4(21a) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz
                                                                               (Law on Turnover Taxes) of 27 April 1993 (BGBl. 1993 I,
                                                                               p. 565), as amended by Paragraph 4(5) of the Umsatzsteuerge-
                                                                               setz-Änderungsgesetz of 12 December 1996 (BGBl. 1996 I,
                                                                               p. 1851), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
In Case C-274/00 P, Odette Simon, resident in Luxembourg,                      its obligations under Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive
represented initially by J.-N. Louis, and, subsequently, by                    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
L. Misson, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg:                 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
the European Communities (single judge) of 10 May 2000 in                      ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Case T-177/97 Simon v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-75                          composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr
and II-319, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                 (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Tim-
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                     mermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck),                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2002, in which it:
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President
of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                1.    Declares that, by exempting from value added tax the research
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,                      activities carried out for consideration by public-sector higher-
has given a judgment on 27 June 2002, in which it:                                   education establishments pursuant to Paragraph 4(21a) of the


title: Joined Cases T-445/09 and T-448/09: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/27

         Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-445/09 and T-448/09) (1)

   2013/C 71/42
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-11/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM (Pianissimo) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Pianissimo — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM (Pianissimo)
      (Case T-11/14) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Pianissimo - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)
      (2015/C 073/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2013 (Case R 441/2013-4), confirming rejection of the application for registration of the word sign Pianissimo as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Siegfried Schweikle against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-153/97)

text:
No C 228/20             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7 . 97
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Siegfried Schweikle                      Licata, residing in Brussels, Alberto Piazzi, residing at
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    Saint Genese ( Belgium ), Cornelis Pot, residing at
                          ( Case T-153/97)                               Roosendaal NC (Netherlands ), Rita Sacca-George,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, Jacques Simon, residing in Brussels,
                             ( 97/C 228/47 )                             and Harry Waterschoot, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                         by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                (Language of the case: French)                           for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne
                                                                         Korn, 21 Avenue de Nassau .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by
Siegfried Schweikle, residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an              — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                    to be regraded,
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  administrative complaint,
— annul the Commission's decision of 3 September 1996                    — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-16/97 (»).
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                         (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Action brought on 9 May 1997 by Achim Berge against
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                          the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                                ( Case T-156/97 )
(>) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                                                ( 97/C 228/49
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 6 May 1997 by Patricia Brunko                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
Metzger and others against the Commission of the                         Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 1997 by
                      European Communities                               Achim Berge, residing in Freiburg ( Federal Republic of
                                                                          Germany ), represented by Dr Miiller-Heidelberg, Rechts
                           ( Case T-154/97 )                              anwalt, Bingen ( Federal Republic of Germany), with an
                              ( 97/C 228/48 )                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                          Charles Duro, 4 Boulevard Royal .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                        — annul the Commission decision rejecting ( impliedly, in
 Instance of the European Communities on 6 May 1997 by                        accordance with Article 2 (4 ), second subpararaph, of
 Patricia Brunko-Metzger, residing in Brussels, Mariette                      Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom ), the applicant's
 Colinet, residing in Brussels, Christiane Degueldre,                         request of 19 December 1996 for access to documents,
 residing at Wemmel ( Belgium ), Nicole Dumont, residing at
 Ath ( Belgium ), Emile Espagnet, residing at Aalst
 ( Belgium ), Paul Fraix, residing at La Bouverie ( Belgium ),            — declare that, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty,
 Georgios Katalagarianakis, residing at Overijse ( Belgium ),                 the constructive refusal provided for in Article 2 (4 ),
 Danielle Lardinois, residing in Brussels, Carlos Alberto                     second subparagraph, of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,
 Leite Mateus, residing at Zaventem ( Belgium ), Liborio                      Euratom is consequently inapplicable,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 June 1998 in Case T-167/97: Kyriakos Skrikas v European Parliament (Officials - Decision not to promote an official - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting an official - Consideration of the comparative merits - Interinstitutional transfer - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 234/26               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
     would have been entitled if he had been reinstated on           2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
     1 January 1995 and the rights to which he is in fact
     entitled;                                                       (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
7. Orders that the sums due under point 6 above are to
     bear interest at the rate of 4.5 % from the date of their
     becoming payable;
8. Orders, before ruling on the amount of the                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     compensation payable by the defendant to the                                           of 4 May 1998
     applicant:
                                                                     in Case T-84/97: Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de
     a) that the parties are to submit to the Court, within          Consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
         three months after delivery of the present                                         Communities (1)
         judgment, the terms agreed by them in relation,             (Anti-dumping procedure Ð Interested party Ð Refusal Ð
         first, to the quantified amount of compensation             Action for annulment Ð Confirmatory act Ð Time-limit
         thus payable to the applicant and, second, in                                     Ð Inadmissibility)
         respect of the re-establishment of his pension
                                                                                (98/C 234/51)
         rights and the interest due in that regard;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
         and
     b) that, in the absence of such agreement, the parties          In Case T-84/97: Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de
         are to send to the Court, within the same time-             Consommateurs (BEUC), established in Brussels,
         limit, their quantified submissions, stating the            represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, assisted by
         precise reasons for which they are unable to accept         Bonifacio García Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with an
         the proposals made by the other party;                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-Adelaïde, against
9. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                           Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                     Nicholas Khan) Ð application for annulment of the
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                            Commission's decision of 3 February 1997 refusing to
                                                                     consider the applicant an interested party in the context of
                                                                     an anti-dumping procedure concerning imports of
                                                                     unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's
                                                                     Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
                                                                     Turkey Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Extended Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President,
                                                                     R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.
                        of 9 June 1998                               Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl              4 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
and CPL Imperial 2 SpA v Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)                              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Post-clearance recovery of customs duties Ð Regulation              2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
   (EEC) No 1697/79 Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)
                         (98/C 234/50)                               (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl,
established at Naples (Italy), and CPL Imperial 2 SpA,
established at Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Celona, of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in                                    of 11 June 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 Rue
                                                                     in   Case    T-167/97:     Kyriakos Skrikas    v   European
Philippe II, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Parliament (1)
(Agents: initially, Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Paolo
Stancanelli and, subsequently, Mr Stancanelli) Ð                     (Officials Ð Decision not to promote an official Ð Action
application for annulment of Commission Decision C(96)               for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð Act adversely affecting
2780 def of 8 October 1996 ordering the post-clearance               an official Ð Consideration of the comparative merits Ð
recovery of customs duties and for compensation for the              Interinstitutional transfer Ð Article 45(1) of the Staff
damage allegedly suffered by the applicants Ð the Court                                        Regulations)
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,                                    (98/C 234/52)
President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; J.
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                            (Language of the case: French)
given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                     In Case T-167/97: Kyriakos Skrikas, an official of the
1. Dismisses the applications;                                       European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/27
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                  1. Dismisses the application as unfounded;
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30            2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament (Agent: Yannis
Pantalis) Ð application for annulment of the decision of           (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to
grade C 3 in the course of the 1996 promotion procedure
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998,                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in which it:
                                                                                of 14 May 1998
                                                                   in Case T-262/97: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament not to promote                            the European Communities (1)
     the applicant to grade C 3 in the course of the 1996                (Action for damages Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
     promotions procedure;
                                                                                (98/C 234/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                   In Case T-262/97, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,
( ) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
 1                                                                 represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3
                                                                   Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                   Richard Lyal) Ð application, in substance, for
                                                                   compensation for the damage alleged to have been caused
                                                                   to the applicant by the Commission's failure to adopt the
                                                                   interim measures he had requested in the context of a
                                                                   complaint against certain anticompetitive practices lodged
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         under Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of
                       of 9 June 1998                              6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing
                                                                   Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special
in Case T-176/97: Alan Hick v Economic and Social                  Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87) Ð the Court of First Instance
        Committee of the European Communities (1)                  (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
(Officials Ð Promotion Ð Official made available to                order on 14 May 1998, the operative part of which is as
work in the department in which he was previously                  follows:
employed Ð Secondment in the interests of the service Ð
                      Misuse of powers)                            1. The application         is  dismissed    as   manifestly
                        (98/C 234/53)                                   inadmissible.
                                                                   2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
In Case T-176/97: Alan Hick, an official of the Economic
and Social Committee of the European Communities,
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                    OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Economic and Social
Committee of the European Communities (Agents: MoiseÂs                                    of 26 May 1998
Bermejo Garde and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for              in Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian
annulment of Decision No 439/96 A of the Economic and               Cooperation v Commission of the European Communities
Social Committee of 30 September 1996 promoting Mr J.
                                                                   (Interim measures Ð Application for interim measures Ð
to grade A 3 and appointing him Head of the Division for
                                                                             Commission decision rejecting a tender)
social, family, educational and cultural affairs within
Directorate B Ð Consultative work, and of the decision of                                  (98/C 234/55)
the same date rejecting the applicant's application for that
post Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                               (Language of the case: French)
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas
and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for                 In Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in             Cooperation, comprising the following members: Danagro
which it:                                                          Adviser A/S, established at Glostrup (Denmark), Plunkett


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2003 in Case C-327/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia): Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia (Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures applicable to public contracts — Limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
26.4.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 101/3
4.    Where it appears that the institution of the place of stay has           before that court between Santex SpA and Unità Socio
      wrongly refused to provide the benefits in kind referred to in           Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia, interveners: Sca Mölnlycke
      Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                      SpA, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the interpretation of
      updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-                    Article 22 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
      lation No 3096/95, and the institution of the place of                   coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
      residence, on being advised of that refusal, has declined to             contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and Article 6(2) EU, the Court
      contribute, as it is obliged to, to facilitating the correct             (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
      application of that provision, it is for the latter institution,         the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
      without prejudice to the possible liability of the institution of        F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      the place of stay, to reimburse directly to the insured person the       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      cost of the treatment he has had to bear, so as to guarantee him         has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it has
      a level of funding equivalent to that which he would have                ruled:
      enjoyed had the provisions of that article been complied with.
                                                                               Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
5.    In the latter case, Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/            coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as                  relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public
      amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and Articles 31 and 93                 supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive
      of Regulation No 574/72, as amended and updated by                       92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
      Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation                          procedures for the award of public service contracts, must be
      No 3096/95, preclude national legislation from subjecting                interpreted as imposing on the competent national courts, where it is
      such reimbursement to the obtaining of ex post facto authoris-           established that, by its conduct, a contracting authority has rendered
      ation which is granted only in so far as it is shown that the            impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred
      illness which necessitated the treatment in question manifested          by the Community legal order on a national of the Union who has
      itself suddenly during the stay, making that treatment immedi-           been harmed by a decision of that contracting authority, an obligation
      ately necessary.                                                         to allow as admissible pleas in law alleging that the notice of
                                                                               invitation to tender is incompatible with Community law, which are
                                                                               put forward in support of an application for review of that decision,
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                   by availing itself, where appropriate, of the possibility afforded by
                                                                               national law of disapplying national rules on limitation periods,
                                                                               under which, when the period prescribed for bringing proceedings for
                                                                               review of the notice of invitation to tender has expired, it is no longer
                                                                               possible to plead such incompatibility.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 36 of 4.11.2000.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 27 February 2003
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-327/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia):                                              of 27 February 2003
Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia (1)
                                                                               in Case C-373/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Adolf Truley
(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Directive                                   GmbH v Bestattung Wien GmbH ( 1)
89/665/EEC — Review procedures applicable to public
 contracts — Limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)                   (Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept
                                                                               of ‘contracting authority’ — Public-law body — Funeral
                            (2003/C 101/05)                                                                 undertaking)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/06)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-327/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                     In Case C-373/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia                  EC by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                    a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 1997 in Case C-205/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Directive 92/42/EEC on efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels - Non-transposition)

text:
No C 94/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 3 . 97
Sevón, President of the First Chamber, acting for the                 quarter of 1995 as a result of tropical storm Debbie ( OJ
President of the Fifth Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.                No L 51 , 8 . 3 . 1995 , p. 8 ) — the Court, composed of:
Puissochet ( Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges;            G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. E Mancini, J. C.
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                   Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 1997, in                (Presidents of Chambers), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
which it has ruled :                                                  D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
                                                                      H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;
                                                                      D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
For the purposes of Articles 14a and 14c of Council                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 February 1997, in
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                    which it:
application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and                  I . dismisses the applications;
updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83, 'employed'
and 'self-employed' should be understood to refer to                  2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs;
activities which are regarded as such for the purposes of
the social security legislation of the Member State in                3.   orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
whose territory those activities are pursued.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                         OJ No C 74, 25, 3 . 1995 .
                                                                          OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 4 February 1997                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Joined Cases C-9/95 , C-23/95 and C-156/95 : Kingdom
of Belgium and Federal Republic of Germany v.                                                 of 6 February 1997
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                  in Case C-205/96:             Commission of the European
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                 Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (')
            Ireland and by the French Republic ( 1 )
                                                                      (Directive 92/42/EEC on efficiency requirements for new
(Bananas — Common organization of the markets —                       hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels —
Natural disaster — Import quota — Adjustment and                                              Non-transposition)
                              allocation)
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/04 )
                            ( 97/C 94/03 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
         (Languages of the case: Dutch and German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-205/96: Commission of the European
In Joined Cases C-9/95 , C-23/95 and C-156/95 : Kingdom               Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Jean
of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder ) and Federal Republic of              Francis Pasquier) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:
Germany (Agent: E. Röder) v. Commission of the                        Raymonde Foucart) — application for a declaration that,
European Communities ( Cases C-9/95 and C-156/95 —                    by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,
Agent: T. van Rijn; Case C-23/95 — Agents : D. Booß and               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
K.-D . Borchardt) supported in Cases C-9/95 , C-23/95 and             comply with Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May
C-156/95 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   1992 on efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers
Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Braviner, assisted by D.                  fired with liquid or gaseous fuels ( OJ No L 167, 22 . 6 .
Anderson) and in Case C-156/95 by the French Republic                 1992, p. 17), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
(Agents: C. de Salins and F. Pascal — application for the             its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth
annulment — in Cases C-9/95 and C-23/95, of                           Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
Commission Regulation ( EC) No 2791 /94 of 16 November                ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and
1994 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity                      D. A. O. Edward, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General;
additional to the tariff quota for imports of bananas in              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 February
                                                                      1997, in which it:
1994 as a result of tropical storm Debbie ( OJ No L 296,
17. 11 . 1994, p. 33 ) and — in Case C-156/95, of
Commission Regulation (EC ) No 510/95 of 7 March 1995                 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
on the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to                  period the laws, regulations and administrative
the tariff quota for imports of bananas during the first                   provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/3
      92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
     for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous            Hamburg by order of that court of 31 July 1996 in the
     fuels, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its            case of Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse
      obligations under Article 9 (1 ) of that Directive;              Hamburg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit)
                                                                                Case C-414/96)
2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                                ( 97/C 94/06 )
(') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the 22nd Chamber
                                                                       of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court) Hamburg of 31 July
                                                                       1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       30 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                  burg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit) on
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                       the following questions :
                      of 21 January 1997                               ( a ) Does the exclusion of male and female workers
in Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors                     employed for less than 18 hours a week from the
               of the European Communities (')                               compulsory statutory unemployment insurance scheme
                                                                             constitute indirect discrimination contrary to Article 4
(Appeal — Officials — Obligations — Acts incompatible                        of Directive 79/7/EEC ( J ), if disproportionately more
with the dignity of the official's office — Duty of loyalty                  women than men are affected by that exclusion;
     — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
                           ( 97/C 94/05 )                              ( b ) Does the exclusion of male and female workers
                                                                             employed for less than 18 hours a week from the
                 (Language of the case: French)                              compulsory statutory unemployment insurance scheme
                                                                             constitute indirect discrimination contrary to Article 4
                                                                             of Directive 79/7/EEC, if a worker has several
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               employment contracts which together amount to
           published in the European Court Reports)                          more than 90 % of full-time employment, and if
                                                                             disproportionately more women than men are affected
                                                                             by that exclusion ?
In Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams, a former official of
the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,                     (') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p. 24 .
residing in Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du
Fort Rheinsheim — appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
( Fifth Chamber ) of 7 March 1996 in Case T-146/94
Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors [ 1996] ECR-SC II                Action brought on 30 December 1996 by the Kingdom
329, seeking to have that judgment set aside — the other               of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
party to the proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the
European Communities, represented by Jean-Marie                                                   Case C-415/96 )
Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta, of the Legal                                              ( 97/C 94/07)
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the seat of the Court of Auditors, 12 rue
Alcide de Gasperi, Kirchberg — the Court ( First                       An action against the Commission of the European
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                the European Communities on 30 December 1996 by the
A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,                  Kingdom of Spain, represented by Luis Perez de Ayala Be
made an order on 21 January 1997, the operative part of                cerril, Abogado del Estado, of the State Legal Department
which is as follows :
                                                                       dealing with matters before the Court of Justice, acting as
                                                                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1 . the appeal is dismissed;                                           Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . the appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
W OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                       1 . declare null and void the decision adopted by the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities on
                                                                             18 September 1996 amending Decision 317/92/EEC (*)
                                                                             of 25 March 1992;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 1996 in Joined Cases C-153/94 and C-204/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte Faroe Seafood Co. Ltd and Førøya Fiskasøla L/F (Case C-153/94); ex parte John Smith and Celia Smith trading as Arthur Smith (a firm) (Case C-204/94) (Customs procedure applicable to certain products originating in the Faroe Islands - Concept of originating products - Post-clearance recovery of customs duties)

text:
6 . 7 . 96              EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 197/5
Maxhùtte Stahlwerke GmbH ( represented by Rainer M.                     products ' and methods of administrative cooperation for
Bierwagen ) v. Commission of the European Communities                   the application of the customs procedure applicable to
(Agents : Paul F. Nemitz and Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) —                  certain products originating in and coming from the Faroe
application for the suspension of the operation of                      Islands ( OJ L 344, 1974, p . 1 ), Council Regulation ( EEC )
Commission Decision 96/178/ECSC of 18 October 1995 on                   No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery
State aid that Bavaria granted to the ECSC steel undertaking            of import duties or export duties which have not been
Neue Maxhutte Stahlwerke GmbH , Sulzbach-Rosenberg                      required of the person liable for payment on goods entered
( OJ L 53 , 1996 , p . 41 ) — the President of the Court made an        for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such
order on 3 May 1996 , the operative part of which is as                 duties ( OJ L 197, 1979 , p . 1 ) and Commission Regulation
follows :                                                               ( EEC ) No 2164/91 of 23 July 1991 laying down provisions
                                                                        for the implementation of Article 5 ( 2 ) of Council
                                                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 ( OJ L 201 , 1991 , p. 16 ), the
1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                  Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                        President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.
                                                                        Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges ; P.
2 , tbe costs are reserved.                                             Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1996 , in
                                                                        which it rules :
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                           1 , Council Regulation (EEC) No 2051 /74 of 1 August
                                                                                1974 on the customs procedure applicable to certain
                                                                                products originating in and coming from the Faroe
                                                                                Islands, definition of the concept of 'originating
                                                                                products ' and methods of administrative cooperation
                                                                                for the application ofthe customs procedure applicable
                                                                                to certain products originating in and coming from the
                                                                                Faroe Islands, and Council Regulation (EEC)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance
                                                                                recovery of import duties or export duties which have
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                      not been required of the person liable for payment on
                           of 14 May 1996                                       goods entered for a customs procedure involving the
                                                                                obligation to pay such duties, are to be interpreted as
 in Joined Cases C-153/94 and C-204/94 ( references for a
                                                                                meaning that the customs authorities of a Member
 preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                                State may, on the basis of the conclusions of a
 Bench Division ): The Queen v. Commissioners of Customs
                                                                                Community mission of enquiry, proceed with the
 and Excise, ex parte Faroe Seafood Co. Ltd and Foraya
                                                                                post-clearance recovery of customs duties on goods
 Fiskasela L/F (Case C-153/94 ); ex parte John Smith and
                                                                                imported from the Faroe Islands, even if, in reliance on
 Celia Smith trading as Arthur Smith (a firm ) ( Case
                              C-204/94 ) C )                                    EUR. 1 certificates issued in good faith by the
                                                                                competent Faroese authorities, they did not levy
  (Customs procedure applicable to certain products                             customs duties at the time of importation; even if the
 originating in the Faroe Islands — Concept of originating                      Faroese authorities dispute the conclusions of the
    products — Post-clearance recovery of customs duties)                       mission of enquiry in so far as they relate to the
                             ( 96/C 197/ 10                                     interpretation of the relevant Community customs
                                                                                legislation and maintain that the certificates are in
                                                                                force; and even if the issues disputed were not referred
                                                                                to the Committee on Origin established pursuant to
                (Language of the case: English)                                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 802/68 of27 June 1 968
                                                                                on the common definition of the concept of the origin
                                                                                of goods ;
  In Joined Cases C-153/94 and C-204/94 : reference to the
  Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the High Court
  of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom ), for a               2 , the criteria for defining 'Faroe Island vessels ' set out in
  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                      Annex IV to Regulation (EEC) No 2051 /74 and
  court between The Queen and Commissioners of Customs                           explanatory note 4 of Annex I to Regulation (EEC)
  and Excise, ex parte Faroe Seafood Co . Ltd . and Foroya                       No 3184/74 are to be applied conjunctively;
  Fiskasola L/F ( Case C-153/94 ); ex parte John Smith and
  Celia Smith trading as Arthur Smith (a firm ) ( Case
  C-204/94 ) on the interpretation of Council Regulation                    3 , the word 'crew' in Annex IV to Regulation (EEC)
  ( EEC ) No 2051 /74 of 1 August 1974 on the customs                            No 2051 /74 and explanatory note 4 of Annex I to
  procedure applicable to certain products originating in and                     Regulation (EEC) (EEC) No 3 1 84/74 does not include
  coming from the Faroe Islands ( OJ L 212 , 1974, p . 33 ),                     persons not forming part of the vessel's normal
  Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3184/74 of 6 December                          complement who are engaged in addition thereto on a
   1 974 concerning the definition of the concept of 'originating                 particular voyage or part of a voyage to work as
 ---pagebreak--- No C 197/6            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6 . 7. 96
     trainees or as unskilled hands below decks, particularly              for the implementation of Article 5 (2) of Council
     for training purposes, in order to comply with a joint                 Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 is to be interpreted as
     venture agreement entered into with an undertaking in                  meaning that the competent authorities of the
     a non-member country for the purpose of enabling the                   importing Member State are not required to refer a
     vessel to fish inside the exclusive economic zone of that              matter to the Commission for a decision as to the
     country, whether those persons are paid either by the                 possibility of refraining from taking action for
     operator of the vessel or by the undertaking in the                   post-clearance recovery of customs duties if they do
     non-member country;                                                    not consider that the conditions laid down in Article 5
                                                                            (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1697179 are satisfied;
 4 , in order to enjoy preferential customs treatment
     pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2051 /74, raw
     materials of Faroese origin within the meaning of                 9 , the fact that the competent Faroese authorities certified
     Regulation (EEC) No 3 1 84/74 must be kept physically                 in the EUR. 1 certificates that the goods originated
     separate during their processing in a Faroese factory                 there or the fact that the competent authorities of the
     from products coming from non-member countries. In                    importing Member State initially accepted that the
     the absence of such separation, however, the customs                  origin ofthe goods was as declared on those certificates
     authorities of the importing Member State may, with                   does not constitute an 'error made by the competent
     the agreement of the Commission, decide in the                        authorities ' within the meaning of Article 5 (2) of
     interests of fairness to levy duty on imports derived                 Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79. It is otherwise,
     from the factory in question only in an amount equal to               however, where the exporter has declared that the
     that which would have been payable if the origins of                  goods are of Faroese origin in reliance on the actual
     the goods in the consignment in question had been                     knowledge by the competent Faroese authorities of all
     proportionally correspondent to the origins of the raw                the facts necessary for applying the customs rules in
     materials brought into the factory in the year in which               question, and where, notwithstanding such
     the import occurred;                                                  knowledge, those authorities have raised no objection
                                                                           concerning the statements made in the exporter's
 5 , it follows from Regulations (EEC) Nos 2051 /74 and                    declarations, thereby basing their certification of the
     3184/74 that, where shrimps and prawns of Faroese                     Faroese origin of the goods on a misinterpretation of
     origin have been processed in a Faroese factory which                 the rules on origin;
     also processes shrimps and prawns coming from
     non-member countries, it is for the exporter to show
     proof, by producing all appropriate supporting                  10 . in order to determine whether the error which may
     documents, that the shrimps and prawns of Faroese                     have been made by the Faroese authorities could not
     origin were physically separated from those of other                  reasonably have been detected by the persons liable
     origins. In the absence of such proof, the shrimps and                within the meaning of Article 5 (2) of Regulation
     prawns can no longer be regarded as being of Faroese                  (EEC) No 1697/79, account must be taken, in
     origin, with the result that the EUR . 1 certificate and              particular, of the nature of the error, the professional
     the preferential tariff must be regarded as having been               experience of the traders concerned and the degree of
     wrongly granted;                                                      care which they exercised. It is for the national court to
                                                                           establish whether, on the basis of that interpretation,
 6 , under Community law as it now stands, it is for                       the criteria for determining the extent to which a
     national law to determine in what circumstances a                     possible error by the competent Faroese authorities
                                                                           was capable of being detected by the persons liable are
     post-clearance demand for payment of a global sum,
                                                                           satisfied in the particular circumstances of this case;
     part of which is irrecoverable for exceeding the
     three-year time-limit laid down by Article 2 (1 ) of
     Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79, must be considered
     void in its entirety, subject, however, to the limits           11 . Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 applies
     imposed by Community law, namely that the                             to a situation in which the person liable has complied
     application of national law may not render the system                 with all the requirements laid down by the Community
     for collecting Community charges and dues less                        rules, and by any national rules supplementing or
     effective than that for collecting national charges and               transposing them, so far as his customs declaration is
     dues of the same kind, or render virtually impossible or              concerned, even if he has, in good faith, supplied the
                                                                           competent authorities with inaccurate or incomplete
     excessively difficult the implementation of Community
     legislation;
                                                                           information, where that was the only information
                                                                           which he might reasonably be expected to possess or
                                                                           obtain.
 1. the competent authorities of the importing Member
     State are not required, before issuing post-clearance
     demands for payment of customs duties, to determine
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
     whether it is possible to refrain from taking action for             OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
     recovery pursuant to Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC)
     No 1697/79;
 8 . Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     No 2164/91 of 23 July 1991 laying down provisions


title: Action brought on 27 April 1998 by Wolfgang Hilden against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-70/98)

text:
4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 209/43
Action brought on 27 April 1998 by Wolfgang Hilden                 of the Barcelona Bar, and BegonÄa Uriarte, with an address
  against the Commission of the European Communities               for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels.
                       (Case T-70/98)
                        (98/C 209/89)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)                     Ð annul the Commission's decision of 5 November 1997
                                                                       declaring incompatible with the common market the
                                                                       aid Spain proposes to grant to Astilleros Zamacona
An action against the Commission of the European                       S.A.,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 1998
by Wolfgang Hilden, residing in Trierweiler (Germany),             Ð order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the
represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst , of the Brussels Bar, with             proceedings.
an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The present action is directed against the decision of the
                                                                   Commission whereby it declares the proposal of Spain to
Ð Rule that the applicant's request that the question of           grant aid in the form of a direct grant to Astilleros
    the possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff         Zamacona S.A. of up to 9 % of the contract value before
    Regulations be considered with a view to reviewing his         aid for five tugboat contracts (Nos 300, 301, 318, 319
    classification in grade with effect from 5 October             and 320) signed in December 1991 is incompatible with
    1995 is admissible and well-founded,                           the common market, since the aid does not comply with
                                                                   Article 4(3) of Directive 90/684/EEC (1).
Ð annul the Commission's decision implicitly rejecting
    the applicant's request that the possible application of       The applicant observes in this respect that State aid in the
    Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations be considered,          shipbuilding sector is governed by special rules laid down
                                                                   in Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on
Ð if necessary, annul the decision explicitly rejecting the        aid to shipbuilding (2), amended by Directive 94/73/EC of
    applicant's complaint, which the Commission adopted            19 December 1994 (3). Thus, Article 4 of the said directive
    on 17 December 1997,                                           authorises the granting of aid related to shipbuilding
                                                                   contracts, provided they do not exceed a common
                                                                   maximum ceiling expressed as a percentage of the contract
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.                        value. Article 4(3) provides that the aid ceiling applicable
                                                                   to a contract shall be that in force at the date of signature
                                                                   of the final contract', unless the ships are delivered more
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                than three years from the date of signing, in which case
                                                                   the applicable ceiling shall be that in force three years
                                                                   before the date of delivery of the ship'. Finally, Article 4(4)
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to               allows the Commission to extend the aforementioned
those relied on in Case T-68/98 (Jung v. Commission).              three-year period when this is found justified by the
                                                                   technical complexity of the individual shipbuilding project
                                                                   concerned or by delays resulting from unexpected
                                                                   disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature in the
                                                                   working programme of a yard'.
Action brought on 30 April 1998 by Astilleros Zamacona             The applicant states that in December 1991 it entered into
S.A. against the Commission of the European                        contracts with a number of shipbuilders for the
                         Communities                               construction of five tugboats. Those contracts were not to
                       (Case T-72/98)                              enter into force until the first payment had been made to
                                                                   the shipbuilder. At that time, the applicant could not
                        (98/C 209/90)                              foresee the financial uncertainty it was to face as from
                                                                   1992. That uncertainty arose from the amendments to
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                     port legislation, the devaluation of Spanish currency, the
                                                                   commencement of construction works at the port of
                                                                   Bilbao, which caused a slowdown of production, and the
An action against the Commission of the European                   takeover of the ARDEAG yard, which was imposed on
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  the applicant within the framework of the restructuring
Instance of the European Communities on 30 April 1998              programme of the Spanish shipbuilding industry. All of
by Astilleros Zamacona S.A., whose registered office is at         this caused a delay of between 7 and 14 months to the
Santurce, Vizcaya (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus,           planned date of delivery of the tugboats contracted for,