title: Case C-473/99: Action brought on 10 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
4.3.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/11
Action brought on 2 December 1999 by the Commission                    1. Does a legal person constitute a ‘contracting authority’
of the European Communities against the French Republic                     within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive
                                                                            93/37/EEC (1) even if it was not established for the specific
                         (Case C-460/99)                                    purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not
                                                                            having an industrial or commercial character, but it now
                          (2000/C 63/20)                                    meets such needs?
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 2 December 1999 by the Commission of               2. If Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GesmbH is not a con-
the European Communities, represented by Maria Condou                       tracting authority, does the planned construction of the
Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address             second biological treatment phase of the principal sewage
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              plant, Vienna, constitute the execution, by whatever means,
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  of a work corresponding to the requirements specified by
                                                                            the contracting authority, and thus a ‘public works con-
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                      tract’ within the meaning of Article 1(a), in conjunction
the Court of Justice should:                                                with Article 1(c), of Directive 93/37/EEC?
— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             3. If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative,
    Council Directive 95/53/EC (1) of 25 October 1995 fixing                does Directive 89/665/EEC (2) preclude a national pro-
    the principles governing the organisation of official inspec-           vision which fixes a time-limit for the review of an
    tions in the field of animal nutrition, the French Republic             individual decision of the contracting authority so that on
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and           expiry of that time-limit the decision can no longer be
    the Treaty;                                                             challenged in the course of the ongoing contract award
                                                                            procedure? Is it necessary, on pain of forfeiture [of rights],
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                               for every defect to be pleaded by the persons concerned?
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                 4. If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                            is it sufficient for the body inviting tenders to determine
The binding nature of Articles 249 and 10 EC means that                     that the applications will be evaluated according to a
Member States to which a directive is addressed are required                method lodged with a notary, or is it necessary for the
to amend their legislation within the time-limits laid down                 evaluation criteria already to have been communicated in
therein. The period prescribed in Article 24 of Directive                   the call for candidates or the tender documents?
95/531/EC expired on 30 April 1998 and France has not
adopted the requisite measures or even given details of any
existing provisions which might meet the requirements of
certain provisions of the directive.                                   (1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.
(1) OJ 1995 L 265, p. 17.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekon-
trollsenat, Vienna, by order of that court of 12 November
1999 in the case of Universale-Bau AG and the consortium               Action brought on 10 December 1999 by the Commission
of tenderers consisting of 1. Hinteregger & Söhne Bau-                     of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
ges.m.b.H. and 2. ÖSTÜ-STETTIN Hoch- und Tiefbau
     GmbH v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH
                                                                                (Case C-473/99)
                         (Case C-470/99)
                          (2000/C 63/21)                                                          (2000/C 63/22)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Vergabekontrollsenat              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
(Procurement Review Chamber), Vienna, of 12 November                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 December           10 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Universale-Bau AG        Communities, represented by Wolfgang Bogensberger, a mem-
and the consortium of tenderers consisting of 1. Hinteregger &         ber of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Söhne Bauges.m.b.H. and 2. ÖSTÜ-STETTIN Hoch- und                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also a
Tiefbau GmbH v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH, on                  member of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
the following questions:                                               Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 63/12                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.3.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 16 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt all the rules, regulations                                       Sweden
     and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Com-
     mission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the
     protection of workers from risks related to exposure to                                     (Case C-478/99)
     biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive
     within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
     89/391/EEC) (1) into national law within the prescribed
     period, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its                                     (2000/C 63/24)
     obligations under the EC Treaty;
2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        16 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Leo Parpal and Paolo Stancanelli,
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as Agents, with
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in             an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo
Case C-460/99 (2) the period for transposition prescribed in           Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner
Article 2 of Directive 95/30/EC expired on 30 November                 Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
1996.
(1) OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41.
(2) See p. 11 of this Official Journal.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993
                                                                             on unfair terms in consumer contracts by not adopting the
                                                                             laws and other provisions required to transpose the annex
                                                                             referred to in Article 3(3) of the directive into national law;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of
8 December 1999 in the case of Ambulanz Glöckner                       2. Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
against Landkreis Südwestpfalz, joined as third parties:
1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-
Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband
Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the
                       public interest, Mainz
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (Case C-475/99)
                            (2000/C 63/23)                             The Commission considers that it is important for the Directive
                                                                       to be implemented in such a way that the requirement for
                                                                       legal certainty is ensured and that the legal situation is clear to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 individuals so that they can become acquainted with all their
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-                  rights.
gericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Adminis-
trative Court) of 8 December 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 15 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Ambulanz Glöckner against Landkreis Südwestpfalz,              Article 8 of the Directive establishes that the directive has
joined as third parties: 1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesver-         minimal character whilst Article 3(3) refers to an indicative list
band Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landes-            in the annex. Member States can add new conditions, formulate
verband Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the       conditions more strictly (so as to make them more restrictive
public interest, Mainz, on the following question:                     for traders) or alter the ‘scope’ defined in point 2(a)2 of the
                                                                       list. On the other hand, they cannot exclude terms or formulate
Is the concession of a monopoly for the provision of ambu-             them in a way less favourable for consumers. The fact that
lance services over a defined geographical area compatible             Article 3(3) refers to the list and that the seventeenth recital of
with Article 86(1) and Article 81 of the EC Treaty?                    the preamble states that the scope of the terms referred to may
                                                                       only be the subject of amplification or more restrictive editing
                                                                       by the Member States in their national laws also leads to the
                                                                       conclusion that the list must be enacted in national legislation.


title: Case F-75/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 — Colombani v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 — Colombani v Commission
   (Case F-75/05) (1)

   (2006/C 190/72)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-294/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-363/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht, Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of 10 July 2001 in the case of Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
5.1.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/13
2.   Do the labelling Directive or Articles 28 and 30 EC                2.   If the answer to Question 1 — first alternative — is
     preclude a national provision which, on the placing into                affirmative, does the airport operator also have the right
     circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-                to claim such a licence fee from a self-handler and/or
     mation such as that described in question (1) to be affixed             supplier of handling services to third parties (supplier in
     thereto only after prior authorisation by the competent                 the situation of the defendant in the main proceedings)
     federal minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is               in sectors where free access to the ground-handling
     that the health-related information is consistent with                  market was already guaranteed prior to entry into force
     protecting the consumer from being misled?                              of Directive 96/67, in particular in regard to land-side
                                                                             handling services?
(1) OJ L 33, p. 1.
                                                                        3.   If Question 2 is answered affirmatively, is Directive 96/67
                                                                             to be interpreted as entitling the managing body within
                                                                             the meaning of Article 3 also to demand payment of an
                                                                             additional licence fee as described in Question 1 for
                                                                             ‘access to airport installations’ from a self-handler and/or
                                                                             a supplier of services in the situation of the defendant in
                                                                             the main proceedings who, until entry into force of
                                                                             Directive 96/67 or of provisions transposing it into
                                                                             national law, paid (only) rent for the use of the relevant
                                                                             airport installations?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt, Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of 10 July
2001 in the case of Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen                      4.   May it even be mandatory to demand (additionally)
                GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG                                 payment of a licence fee by a self-handler and/or supplier
                                                                             of handling services who has hitherto enjoyed free access
                                                                             to that market, or to the self-handling sector, without
                         (Case C-363/01)                                     being required to pay an additional licence fee, in order
                                                                             to prevent unequal treatment in relation to other self-
                                                                             handlers and suppliers of ground-handling services
                          (2002/C 3/18)
                                                                             (a)   who have already hitherto been requested to pay a
                                                                                supplementary licence fee in addition to a user fee;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                       (b) who are for the first time granted access to airport
(Higher Regional Court), received at the Court Registry on                         installations on the basis of the legal situation
24 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                         created by Directive 96/67 and are henceforth being
Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthan-                            requested to pay a licence fee for such access
sa AG on the following questions:                                                  in addition to a further user fee for use of the
                                                                                installations?
1.   Is Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October 1996
     on access to the groundhandling market, in particular
     Article 16(3) thereof, in conjunction with recital 25 in           5.   In so far as Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67 entitles
     the preamble thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that                 an airport’s managing body to require payment of a
     the managing body of an airport within the meaning of                   supplementary licence fee as described above, does a
     Article 3 is entitled to demand from a self-handler and/or              licence fee which is required to be paid in addition to a
     a supplier of handling services to third parties payment                fee for use of check-in desks meet the requirements
     of a separate licence fee for the grant of ‘access to airport           of Article 16(3) in regard to relevance, objectivity,
     installations’ in the sense of an access fee in return for the          transparency and non-discrimination where it is deter-
     opening-up of a commercial opportunity in addition to a                 mined according to numbers of passengers (in this case
     user fee (rental) payable by the self-handler or a supplier             DM 0,30 per passenger checked in)?
     to third parties of handling services for the rental under
     contract of airport installations, in this case, passenger
     check-in desks;
                                                                        (1) OJ L 272, p. 36.
     or alternatively, does Directive 96/67 merely provide
     that, for the purposes of determining a user fee, account
     is to be taken of the criteria mentioned in Article 16(3)
     and regard is to be had to the interest of the managing
     body of the airport in achieving a profit?


title: Case T-83/17: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Heineken Romania v EUIPO — Lénárd (Csíki Sör)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/41

         Order of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Heineken Romania v EUIPO — Lénárd (Csíki Sör)
   (Case T-83/17) (1)

   (2017/C 256/49)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-15/01: Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Stefano Benini against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 95/20                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.3.2001
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Stefano Benini                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority in
                          (Case T-15/01)
                                                                                its memorandum of 24 February 2000 to continue to
                                                                                transfer part of his remuneration but at a rate of only
                          (2001/C 95/39)                                        19 % of his net monthly salary, instead of 35 %;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        —     annul the decision of the Heads of Administration
                                                                                No 102/84 approved by them at the 149th meeting of
                                                                                6 April 1984, inasmuch as it allows the appointing
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       authority to limit its transfer to 19 % in place of 35 %;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 January 2001 by Stefano Benini
represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Massimo Condinanzi,                   —     order the defendant to pay the applicant a provisional
Avvocati, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of damages to be assessed
                                                                                subsequently together with default interest, by way of
                                                                                damages for the financial injury caused to him;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of the Commission of 28 September                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
      28 March 2000 under No 169/2000;
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, an official working for the Commission in
                                                                          Brussels, purchased residential property in London. The pur-
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as though                chase was partly financed by a mortgage in the United
in Case T-11/01 Maschetti v Commission (1).                               Kingdom repayable on a monthly basis over 10 years.
(1) Not yet published in the OJ.                                          Accordingly, the applicant requested a transfer to the United
                                                                          Kingdom of 35 % of his net monthly salary under Article 17(2)
                                                                          of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The Commission limited the transfer to a ceiling of 19 % on
                                                                          the ground that such a ceiling was applicable, by analogy,
                                                                          pursuant to Decision No 102/84 of the Heads of Adminis-
                                                                          tration. The applicant claims that that limitation is unlawful
Action brought on 24 January 2001 by Georgios Rounis
    against Commission of the European Communities                        and that it does not comply with either the Staff Regulations
                                                                          or the joint rules fixing the detailed rules relating to the transfer
                                                                          of part of the salary.
                          (Case T-17/01)
                          (2001/C 95/40)                                  The applicant also claims that the appointing authority
                                                                          infringed Articles 62 and 63 of the Staff Regulations and that
                                                                          its decision, based on grounds which are both legally and
                   (Language of the case: French)                         factually incorrect, discriminates against the applicant by
                                                                          comparison with other officials in the same situation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 January 2001 by Georgios
Rounis, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2014 in Case E-18/14 — Wow air ehf. v The Icelandic Competition Authority (Samkeppniseftirlitið), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf. (Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 — Allocation of time slots at EEA airports — Intervention by competition authorities — Accelerated procedure)

text:
               4.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/9

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 10 December 2014
   in Case E-18/14
   Wow air ehf. v The Icelandic Competition Authority (Samkeppniseftirlitið), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf.
   (Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 — Allocation of time slots at EEA airports — Intervention by competition authorities — Accelerated procedure)
   (2015/C 183/10)
   In Case E-18/14, Wow air ehf. v The Icelandic Competition Authority (Samkeppniseftirlitið), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf. – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 requires an EEA State to appoint a qualified natural or legal person as airport coordinator after having consulted the parties indicated therein. Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 requires the coordinator to be independent, both legally and factually, from all interested parties from which he must also be functionally separated. As long as these conditions are fulfilled, EEA States have discretion in determining the status of the coordinator. On the basis of those findings, it is for the national court to draw the necessary conclusions in order to ensure the effectiveness of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93.

               2.

               The complaint procedure laid down in Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 is not mandatory. Therefore, this procedure does not preclude the possibility that complaints based on competition law considerations may be submitted directly to national competition authorities.

               3.

               Pursuant to Article 8b of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, public authorities' instructions on time slot allocation to encourage competition may be addressed to air carriers, but may not be directed to a coordinator. Moreover, it would serve no purpose to issue instructions to the airport managing body. Unlike the primary allocation of time slots, which is the sole responsibility of the coordinator, Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 does not prohibit the transfer of time slots after the time slot allocation, if required under competition law. Consequently, the competition authorities of an EEA State may instruct the undertakings concerned if such a remedy is found to be necessary under applicable national or EEA competition law.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2000 in Case T-597/97: Euromin SA v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Dumping — Inadmissibility)

text:
7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/7
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 May 2000
                         of 21 June 2000
                                                                           in Case T-177/97: Odette Simon v Commission of the
in Case T-429/93: successors of Edmond Ropars v Council                                       European Communities (1)
                   of the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Claim to entitlement to the status of a member
                                                                                of the temporary staff)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
entered into an undertaking to convert — Transfer of a                                               (2000/C 285/13)
                              holding)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2000/C 285/12)
                                                                           In Case T-177/97: Odette Simon, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                           represented by J.-N. Louis, T. Demaseure and F. Parmentier, of
                                                                           the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                   (Language of the case: French)                          the offices of the Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue
                                                                           Beck, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-429/93: Madeleine Amélie Le Goff, residing in                    G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the
Plounevezel, France, Liliane Ropars, residing in Rouziers-de-              Commission’s decision rejecting the application made by the
Touraine, France, Jacqueline Ropars, residing in Gleize, France,           applicant for the regularisation of her administrative situation
Marie-Christine Ropars, residing in Guerlesquin, France, Gisèle            and for the award of one euro as token compensation for the
Ropars, residing in Morlaix, France, Madeleine Ropars, residing            non-material damage caused to the applicant — the Court of
in Glomel, France, Louise Ropars, residing in Saint Laurent-du-            First Instance (Single Judge), composed of: M. Vilaras, sitting as
Maroni, French Guiana, Joseph Ropars, residing in Laniscat,                a single judge; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
France, as successors of Edmond Ropars, represented by                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2000, in which it:
C. Larzul and F. Buffet, and subsequently by A. Delanoé, of the
Rennes Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               1.    Dismisses the application;
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch v Council of the
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Union (Agent: A.M. Colaert) — application for
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the                   (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by
Edmond Ropars as a result of his having been prevented
from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
(OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down
detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred                                   of 20 June 2000
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984
L 132, p. 11) — the Court (Single Judge: R.M. Moura Ramos);                in Case T-597/97: Euromin SA v Council of the European
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                                        Union (1)
a judgment on 21 June 2000, in which it:
                                                                              (Action for annulment — Dumping — Inadmissibility)
1.    Refuses the application for a stay of proceedings;
                                                                                (2000/C 285/14)
2.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
3.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                           In Case T-597/97: Euromin SA, established in Geneva, Switzer-
                                                                           land, represented initially by D. Horovitz, J. Bäverbrant,
(1) OJ C 217 of 20.8.91.
                                                                           G. Vandersanden and N. Stockwell, of the Brussels Bar, and
                                                                           by N. Robson, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Horovitz,
                                                                           G. Vandersanden, N. Stockwell, M.E. Pitt and S. Sheppard,
                                                                           Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/5
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            according to the State, may adversely affect both the
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Christophe                  exercise of sound competition on the cigarette market
Giolito, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address               and the pursuit of a public health policy aimed at
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                 combatting addiction to tobacco.
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    (Different rates of tax for dark-tobacco and
the Court should:                                                         light-tobacco cigarettes)
—     declare that:                                                       —    Infringement of Articles 8 (2) and 16 (5) of Directive
                                                                               95/59/EC:
      by maintaining in force a system imposing a minimum
      reference price for all cigarettes, the French Republic has              Article 575a of the French Code Général des Impôts
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 (1) of Council          (General Tax Code) provides for the imposition of a
      Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other                    consumption duty fixed, for units of 1 000, at FRF 500 in
      than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of                      1999 and FRF 530 in 2000 as regards light-tobacco
      manufactured tobacco (1);                                                cigarettes and at FRF 400 in 1999 and FRF 470 in 2000
                                                                               as regard dark-tobacco cigarettes. The Commission is
      and that:                                                                pleased to note that the French authorities acknowledge
                                                                               that Community legislation permits only a single mini-
                                                                               mum excise duty to be levied in respect of all categories
      by maintaining in force a system imposing different tax
                                                                               and sorts of cigarettes. However, in the absence of any
      rates on dark-tobacco and light-tobacco cigarettes, to the
                                                                               modification of Article 575a of the French Code Général
      disadvantage of the latter, the French Republic has failed
                                                                               des Impôts, the infringement of Community law subsists.
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 (2) and 16 (5) of
      Directive 95/59/EC, under Article 2 of Council Directive
      92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of                —    Infringement of Article 90 EC:
      taxes on cigarettes (2) and under the first paragraph of
      Article 90 EC, alternatively under the second paragraph
      of Article 90 EC;                                                        The imposition of different rates of tax on light-tobacco
                                                                               and dark-tobacco cigarettes constitutes a discriminatory
                                                                               fiscal practice protecting national products, inasmuch as
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              99 % of the dark-tobacco cigarettes distributed in France
                                                                               are manufactured in that country.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                The products concerned are ‘similar’ products within the
                                                                               meaning of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, having
                                                                               the same fiscal classification (Article 2 (1) of Directive
(Minimum reference price)                                                      95/59/EC applies no distinction in that regard) and the
                                                                               same customs classification. The fact that, according to
—     Infringement of Article 9 (1) of Council Directive                       the French authorities, dark tobaccoes are sold at the
      95/59/EC:                                                                lowest prices, that the market in those products is not
                                                                               attracting any more customers and that consumption of
                                                                               those products is continuing to fall may explain the
      Article 572 of the French Code Général des Impôts
                                                                               reasons for the adoption of the French measures but does
      (General Tax Code) provides that the price per 1 000 units
                                                                               not justify them, since they constitute discriminatory
      of products of a given category sold under the same
                                                                               taxation contrary to the first paragraph of Article 90 EC.
      brand may not be lower, regardless of the style or unit of
      packaging used, than that applied to the best-selling
      product of that brand; this is tantamount to the impo-                   However, even if (quod non) it were accepted that light-
      sition of a minimum reference price. The imposition of                   tobacco and dark-tobacco cigarettes are not similar
      such a minimum reference price precludes any price                       products within the meaning of the first paragraph of
      variation within the same brand of cigarettes reflecting                 Article 90 EC and that a separate market therefore exists
      the number (10, 20, 30, etc.) or length of the cigarettes                for dark-tobacco cigarettes, the latter would clearly find
      concerned (normal length, ‘king size’, ‘super long’). More-              themselves competing with light-tobacco cigarettes.
      over, it restricts the manufacturer’s right to apply different
      prices within one and the same brand according to the
      quality or intrinsic characteristics of the products in
      question, such as cigarettes with or without filter-tips,           (1) OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40.
      medium-strength or mild cigarettes, menthol cigarettes,             (2) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 8.
      etc. The French Government is incorrect in its apparent
      view that Article 9 of the directive permits a Member
      State to intervene in the event of any price reduction
      which is freely accepted by the manufacturer and which,


title: Case T-48/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Franchet and Byk v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Civil service — Investigations by OLAF — Eurostat case — Communication to national judicial authorities of information relating to facts liable to lead to criminal proceedings — Lack of advance information for the officials concerned and the supervisory committee of OLAF — Leaks in the press — Disclosure by OLAF and the Commission — Breach of the principle of presumption of innocence — Non-material damage — Causal link)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Franchet and Byk v Commission
   (Case T-48/05) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Civil service - Investigations by OLAF - ‘Eurostat’ case - Communication to national judicial authorities of information relating to facts liable to lead to criminal proceedings - Lack of advance information for the officials concerned and the supervisory committee of OLAF - Leaks in the press - Disclosure by OLAF and the Commission - Breach of the principle of presumption of innocence - Non-material damage - Causal link)
   (2008/C 209/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Yves Franchet (Nice, France) and Daniel Byk (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered as a result of alleged wrongful acts on the part of the Commission and OLAF in the course of investigations relating to the ‘Eurostat’ case.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk the sum of EUR 56 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-71/08: Action brought on 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/22

         Action brought on 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-71/08)
   (2008/C 92/41)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Commission asks the Court to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (1), most recently amended by Directive 2006/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 amending Directive 2004/39/EC on markets in financial instruments, as regards certain deadlines (2), or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 70 of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementing the directive in the domestic legal order expired on 31 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 114, p. 60.


title: Case C-413/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 27 July 2015 — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 27 July 2015 — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)
   (Case C-413/15)
   (2015/C 320/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elaine Farrell

      Defendants: Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the test in Foster and Others v British Gas plc (Case C-188/89) as set out at para. 20 on the question of what is an emanation of a member state to be read on the basis that the elements of the test are to be applied

                           (a)

                           conjunctively, or

                           (b)

                           disjunctively?

               2.

               To the extent that separate matters referred to in Foster and Others v British Gas plc (Case C-188/89) may, alternatively, be considered to be factors which should properly be taken into account in reaching an overall assessment, is there a fundamental principle underlying the separate factors identified in that decision which a court should apply in reasoning an assessment as to whether a specified body is an emanation of the State?

               3.

               Is it sufficient that a broad measure of responsibility has been transferred to a body by a member state for the ostensible purpose of meeting obligations under European law for that body to be an emanation of the member state or is it necessary, in addition, that such a body additionally have (a) special powers or (b) operate under direct control or supervision of the member state?


C 94/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-79/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/33)                                                      (98/C 94/37)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-79/97: (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):          a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München):
FRUKO-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emme-               Happy Sports Michl OHG v. Finanzamt Landshut.
rich.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-99/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/96 ( )1
                                                                                (98/C 94/38)
                         (98/C 94/34)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-99/97: (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-300/96 (Reference for         a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):
a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches            Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-
Verwaltungsgericht): Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und            wesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH.
Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-135/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (1)                                       (98/C 94/39)
                         (98/C 94/35)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           removal from the register of Case C-135/97: (Reference
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht
removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (Reference for         Wien): Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-        Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand
sachsen): Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler.             Gesellschaft mbH.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/36)                                                      (98/C 94/40)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg):             a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): HDM
Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham-               Flugservice GesmbH. v. Hauptverband der österreichischen
burg, intervener: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                       Sozialversicherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                          (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Case C-416/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Jozef Križan and Others v Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia (Article 267 TFEU — Annulment of a judicial decision — Referral back to the court concerned — Obligation to comply with the annulment decision — Request for a preliminary ruling — Whether possible — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 85/337/EEC — Directive 96/61/EC — Public participation in the decision-making process — Construction of a landfill site — Application for a permit — Trade secrets — Non-communication of a document to the public — Effect on the validity of the decision authorising the landfill site — Rectification — Assessment of the environmental impact of the project — Final opinion prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union — Application in time of Directive 85/337 — Effective legal remedy — Interim measures — Suspension of implementation — Annulment of the contested decision — Right to property — Interference)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Jozef Križan and Others v Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia
   (Case C-416/10) (1)

   (Article 267 TFEU - Annulment of a judicial decision - Referral back to the court concerned - Obligation to comply with the annulment decision - Request for a preliminary ruling - Whether possible - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 85/337/EEC - Directive 96/61/EC - Public participation in the decision-making process - Construction of a landfill site - Application for a permit - Trade secrets - Non-communication of a document to the public - Effect on the validity of the decision authorising the landfill site - Rectification - Assessment of the environmental impact of the project - Final opinion prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union - Application in time of Directive 85/337 - Effective legal remedy - Interim measures - Suspension of implementation - Annulment of the contested decision - Right to property - Interference)
   2013/C 63/02
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Jozef Križan, Katarína Aksamitová, Gabriela Kokošková, Jozef Kokoška, Martina Strezenická, Jozef Strezenický, Peter Šidlo, Lenka Šidlová, Drahoslava Šidlová, Milan Šimovič, Elena Šimovičová, Stanislav Aksamit, Tomáš Pitoňák, Petra Pitoňáková, Mária Križanová, Vladimír Mizerák, Ľubomír Pevný, Darina Brunovská, Mária Fišerová, Lenka Fišerová, Peter Zvolenský, Katarína Zvolenská, Kamila Mizeráková, Anna Konfráterová, Milan Konfráter, Michaela Konfráterová, Tomáš Pavlovič, Jozef Krivošík, Ema Krivošíková, Eva Pavlovičová, Jaroslav Pavlovič, Pavol Šipoš, Martina Šipošová, Jozefína Šipošová, Zuzana Šipošová, Ivan Čaputa, Zuzana Čaputová, Štefan Strapák, Katarína Strapáková, František Slezák, Agnesa Slezáková, Vincent Zimka, Elena Zimková, Marián Šipoš, Mesto Pezinok

      Respondent: Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia

      Intervener: Ekologická skládka as

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of Articles 191(1) and (2) TFEU and 267 TFEU, Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), in particular Articles 1, 6, 15 and 15a, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), in particular Articles 2 and 10a, and Articles 6 and 9 of the (Aarhus) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — Establishment of a landfill site — Assessment of the environmental effects of the project — Public participation in the decision-making process — Possibility for a court of a Member State to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the application, of its own motion, of European Union law on the protection of the environment, even if the Constitutional Court of that State has excluded such application by a decision binding on the referring court

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, such as the referring court, is obliged to make, of its own motion, a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union even though it is ruling on a referral back to it after its first decision was set aside by the constitutional court of the Member State concerned and even though a national rule obliges it to resolve the dispute by following the legal opinion of that latter court.

               2.

               Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that it:

                           —

                           requires that the public concerned have access to an urban planning decision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from the beginning of the authorisation procedure for the installation concerned,

                           —

                           does not allow the competent national authorities to refuse the public concerned access to such a decision by relying on the protection of the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided for by national or European Union law to protect a legitimate economic interest, and

                           —

                           does not preclude the possibility of rectifying, during the administrative procedure at second instance, an unjustified refusal to make available to the public concerned an urban planning decision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, during the administrative procedure at first instance, provided that all options and solutions remain possible and that regularisation at that stage of the procedure still allows that public effectively to influence the outcome of the decision-making process, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

               3.

               Article 15a of Directive 96/61, as amended by Regulation No 166/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that members of the public concerned must be able, in the context of the action provided for by that provision, to ask the court or competent independent and impartial body established by law to order interim measures such as temporarily to suspend the application of a permit, within the meaning of Article 4 of that directive, pending the final decision.

               4.

               A decision of a national court, taken in the context of national proceedings implementing the obligations resulting from Article 15a of Directive 96/61, as amended by Regulation No 166/2006, and from Article 9(2) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, which annuls a permit granted in infringement of the provisions of that directive is not capable, in itself, of constituting an unjustified interference with the developer’s right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-186/04: Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie Fermière de Spa against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/18

         Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie Fermière de Spa against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-186/04)
   (2004/C 201/40)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie Fermière de Spa, established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers.
   Spaform Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision R 0827/2002-4 of 25 February 2004 of the Fourth Board of Appeal dismissing the appeal by the applicant against the Opposition Division's decision to dismiss the opposition brought by the applicant against registration of the word mark ‘SPAFORM’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11.

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Spaform Limited

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘SPAFORM’ — application No 609 776 for goods in Classes 7 (pumps, etc.), 9 (apparatus and instruments for measuring pressure) and 11 (whirlpool baths)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               The national mark SPA for products in Classes 32 (mineral waters, etc.)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Dismissal of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (1). On the basis of that article, the Opposition Division held that the information available to the Office at the end of the opposition period did not permit identification of the earlier mark relied on. The applicant calls in question that finding.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-450/11: Action brought on 1 September 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/10

         Action brought on 1 September 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-450/11)
   2011/C 319/18
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by applying the special VAT scheme for travel agents to travel services sold to persons other than travellers, as provided for by Decree-Law No 221/85 of 3 July 1985, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive. (1)

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that, in so far as the Portuguese Republic applies the special scheme in question to the services supplied by travel agents to other travel agents or to other persons liable to VAT other than travellers, its application of that scheme is not consistent with the provisions of the European Union legislation in that field, since in accordance with the VAT Directive the special scheme must be applied only to services supplied to travellers.

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


title: Case C-474/04: Action brought on 10 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/10

         Action brought on 10 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-474/04)
   (2004/C 314/20)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande and Carmel O'Reilly, Legal Advisers in the Commission's Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 (1) on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, or in any event by failing to notify the measures in question to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 2 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 149 of 28.5.2001, p. 34.


title: Case T-537/14: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/67

         Order of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX)
   (Case T-537/14) (1)

   (2016/C 270/73)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-33/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 22 January 2013 — Marcin Jagiełło v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 22 January 2013 — Marcin Jagiełło v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   (Case C-33/13)
   2013/C 141/13
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marcin Jagiełło

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a sale effected by a trader who, with the authorisation of another person, used the company name of that person to conceal its economic activity cannot be regarded as a supply of goods?

               2.

               Must Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment be interpreted as meaning that tax cannot be deducted from an invoice issued by a person who merely acted as a front for the sale of goods effected by another trader, without it being demonstrated that the acquirer was aware, or on the basis of objective factors could have foreseen, that the transaction in which he was participating was connected with fraud or other irregularities committed by the issuer of the invoice or a trader working with him?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


C 264/26              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                       1.11.2003
Action brought on 19 September 2003 by the Com-                                  Removal from the register of Case C-214/02 (1)
mission of the European Communities against the
                  Kingdom of the Netherlands                                                      (2003/C 264/45)
                        (Case C-395/03)                                    By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2003/C 264/44)                                    from the register of Case C-214/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
                                                                           Vorarlberg): Gerhard Lintschinger.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought               (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by W. Wils and K. Banks, acting as
Agents.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-219/02 (1)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (2003/C 264/46)
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and          By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      administrative provisions necessary to give effect to                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      Directive 98/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of             register of Case C-219/02: Commission of the European
      the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
      biotechnological inventions, or in any event by failing to
      inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom
      of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under        (1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.
      that directive;
2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-242/02 and
                                                                                C-243/02 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2003/C 264/47)
The period within which the directive had to be transposed                 By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
expired on 30 July 2000.                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Joined Cases C-214/02 and C-243/02
                                                                           (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
(1) OJ L 213 of 30.7.1998, p. 13.                                          Verwaltungssenat des Salzburg): Manfred Hückel.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case C-196/06 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03: Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/7

         Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03: Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)
   (Case C-196/06 P)
   (2006/C 190/11)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Alecansan SL (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, CompUSA Management Co.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of 7 February 2006 (Case T-2002/03) of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance dismissing the action for annulment filed against the Resolution dated 24 March 2003 of the First Appeal Chamber of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) in case R-711/2002-1, dismissing the opposition filed by Alecansan SL against community trade mark application No 849.497 ‘COMPUSA’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in its interpretation of article 8.1.b) of Regulations No 40/94 (1) when it found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks on the grounds that, despite the high degree of similarity from a phonetic and a visual point of view, the goods and services of the trade mark applied for are not similar to the services covered by the appellant's mark. The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance failed to take account of several important factors when determining the existence of the likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p.1


title: Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Adam Buick against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-209/96)

text:
No C 54/32            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
21 February 1995 , in order to remind him that his leave               — annul the Commission 's decision rejecting the claim
on personal grounds had come to an end . It was not until                   for compensation for the damage suffered by the
 19 April 1996 that the applicant was reinstated, by                        applicant,
decision of the appointing authority, in the post which he
now occupies. That decision took effect from 1 June 1996 ,             — order the Commission to reinstate the applicant in
and the applicant therefore took up his duties again with                   respect of the period from 1 January 1992 to 1 July
effect from that date .                                                      1993 and to pay him the remuneration to which he is
                                                                            entitled for that period, together with default interest
The applicant states           in that regard that,       in the            at the rate of 8 % per annum as from the date on
circumstances , the defendant's conduct was unlawful .                      which the remuneration due first became payable until
In his view, the semi-unconditional nature of the                           the day on which payment is effected,
reinstatement obligation laid down in Article 40 ( 4 ) ( d ) of
the Staff Regulations has been clearly confirmed by the                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
relevant case-law, subject only to the availability of a
vacant post corresponding to the abilities required of the             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
person concerned . That obligation cannot therefore be
disregarded on account of any professional activities                  The applicant, a Commission official on leave on personal
which the official in question was pursuing on the date                grounds since 1 January 1989, asks the Commission to
when the first post fell vacant. Consequently, the claim by            pay compensation for the damage suffered through not
the appointing authority, in its decision rejecting the                being reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 ( 4 ) ( d ) of
complaint, that it took into account the applicant's                   the Staff Regulations, in the first post to fall vacant and,
inability immediately to free himself of his responsibilities          in particular, in post A 7/4 007165 , declared vacant in
as professor at the University of Lausanne in order to                 DG III/D/ 1 on 22 October 1991 . The Commission has
return to the Parliament cannot constitute a valid excuse
                                                                       failed as yet to show that it carried out a genuine and
in the circumstances . In actual fact, the applicant never             detailed    examination      of his  abilities vis-a-vis   those
put forward any obstacle to his reinstatement.                         required by the post in question . Furthermore, the
                                                                       applicant alleges that the Commission 's appraisal of his
Even if ( which is denied ) the head of the appointing                 adaptability, which led to the refusal to reinstate him in
authority was legitimately led by the applicant to believe             the first post to fall vacant, discloses a manifest error of
                                                                       assessment .
that that authority could postpone the date of his
reinstatement, it was not open to the appointing authority,
for its part, to disregard the wording and purpose of the
aforementioned provision of the Staff Regulations in order
unilaterally to evade its obligations .
                                                                       Action brought on 16 December 1996 by Margarida
                                                                       Maria Mendes Pires Afonso against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-2 10/96 )
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Adam Buick                                                 ( 97/C 54/53 )
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-209/96 )                                              (Language of the case: French)
                           ( 97/C 54/52
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the Europeah
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                       1996 by Margarida Maria Mendes Pires Afonso, residing
                                                                       in Luxembourg, represented by Christophe Steyaert, of the
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       the applicant's residence, 6 rue Henri Pensis .
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December
1996 by Adam Buick, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the   Brussels   Bar,    with    an   address  for    service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30                 — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
rue de Cessange .                                                           26 February 1996 in so far as it appoints the applicant
                                                                            to grade A 7, step 3 , and implicitly refuses to appoint
                                                                            her to grade A 6,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
— declare that the Commission acted unlawfully in not                       1 October 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint
    reinstating the applicant on 1 January 1992 in post                     which the applicant submitted against the above
    007165-ex Strauss, declared vacant in DG III/D/ 1 on                    decision and which was lodged at the Secretariat
    22 October 1991 ,                                                       General of the Commission on 26 June 1996 ,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen by order of that court of 9 December 1996 in the administrative proceedings between Mehmet Birden and Stadtgemeinde Bremen (Case C-1/97)

text:
 No C 74/ 14           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8 . 3 . 97
     employment for the duration of the employment as                   paragraph 19 (2 ) of the Bundessozialhilfegesetz ( Federal
     freely determined between the employer and the                      Law on Social Assistance )) to a limited group of persons ?
     employee ( i.e. length of employment) and the benefits
     arising from such security, such as a career structure
     providing the possibility of promotion, vocational
     training and pay and retirement pensions
     commensurate to the seniority of the applicant,
     applying mutatis mutandis the reasoning used by the                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
     European Court of Justice in inter alia Case C-272/92              Criminal Division, by order of that court of 24 December
     Spotti v. Freistaat Bayern [ 1994] 3 CMLR 29, [ 1993 ]
                                                                         1996, in the case of Regina against John Charles Goodwin
     ECR 1-5185 and Case 225/85 Commission v. Italy                                        and Edward Thomas Unstead
     [ 1987] ECR 2625 ?
                                                                                (Case C-3/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/28 )
 2 . If so, does the fact that the length of the applicant's
     employment is subject to a de facto time limit by the
     operation of the United Kingdom immigration laws                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and in the instant case is being terminated by the                 European Communities by an order of the Court of
     respondent's decision not to extend the applicant's                Appeal, Criminal Division, of 24 December 1996, which
     leave to remain in the United Kingdom constitute                   was received at the Court Registry on 9 January 1997, for
     discrimination in relation to such 'working conditions'            a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina against John
     on grounds of nationality where the respondent could               Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead, on the
     not impose such a de facto time limit and/or forced                following question :
     termination of employment upon its own nationals ?
                                                                        Does the supply of counterfeit perfume products fall
3 . If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the                        within the scope of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     affirmative, does Article 40 of the EC/Morocco                     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Cooperation Agreement require the Member State to                  Member States relating to turnover taxes (the sixth
     grant the Moroccan worker leave to remain for the                  Directive ) ( 1 )?
     duration of his lawful employment ?
                                                                        (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
Reference      for    a       preliminary     ruling    by    the       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen by                      State, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 18 December
order    of  that   court     of   9   December    1996   in  the
                                                                        1996 in the case of NV Ballast Nedam Group v. Belgian
administrative proceedings between Mehmet Birden and                                                      State
                    Stadtgemeinde Bremen
                                                                                ( Case C-5/97 )
                         ( Case C-l /97 )
                                                                                97/C 74/29
                           ( 97/C 74/27 )
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                        European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van
of the European Communities by order of the                            Staate ( Council of State ) of 18 December 1997, which was
Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen                        received at the Court Registry on 13 January 1997, for a
( Administrative Court of the Free Hanseatic City of                   preliminary ruling in the case of Ballast Nedam Group v.
Bremen ) of 9 December 1996, received at the Court                     Belgian State
Registry on 6 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Mehmet Birden v. Stadtgemeinde Bremen ( City               on the following questions :
of Bremen ) on the following question:
                                                                        1 . May the word 'permit' in the phrase 'permit [. . .]
Is a Turkish worker a duly registered member of the                         account to be taken of [...]' in the operative part of
labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of                       the judgment in Case C-389/92 (') be taken to mean
Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey                       'require'?
Association     Council       on    the   development    of   the
Association, if he has a job sponsored by that Member                  2. If the word 'permit' in the above phrase cannot be
State with public funds and requiring payment of social                     taken to mean 'require ', does that mean that the
security contributions which is meant to enable him to                      Member State concerned in this regard enjoys a
enter or re-enter working life and which, owing to the                      discretionary power, even where the condition laid
State sponsorship, may only be offered (pursuant to                         down by the Court is satisfied ?


title: Case T-48/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM — Protec Health International (astex TECHNOLOGY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark astex TECHNOLOGY — Earlier Community word mark ASTEX — Ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM — Protec Health International (astex TECHNOLOGY)
   (Case T-48/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark astex TECHNOLOGY - Earlier Community word mark ASTEX - Ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2008/C 272/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Astex Therapeutics Ltd (Cambridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, barrister, and R. Harrison, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Protec Health International Ltd (Cirencester, United Kingdom)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2005 (Case R 651/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Protec Health International Ltd and Astex Therapeutics Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Astex Therapeutics Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case F-37/07: Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Cros v Court of Justice

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/28

         Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Cros v Court of Justice
   (Case F-37/07)
   (2007/C 129/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alexia Cros (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Reveillaud, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority (AIPN) of 19 July 2006 appointing the applicant probationary official as a lawyer-linguist with effect from 1 September 2006 in that she is classified at grade AD7;

               —

               Declare and hold that, retroactively to the date of appointment of 1 September 2006, the applicant is to be classified at grade A*10 corresponding to grade LA6 before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1);

               —

               Order the full reconstitution of her career with effect retroactively to 1 September 2006;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the contested decision, based on Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, infringes:

               —

               notice of open competition CJ/LA/24 (2), pursuant to which the recruitment of successful candidates would be made at grade LA7/LA6;

               —

               the principle of equal treatment;

               —

               the principle of legitimate expectations and the principles of sound administration, transparency and the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.

      (1)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 182 A, 31.7.2002, p. 1.


title: Case T-446/17: Action brought on 15 July 2017 — TK v Parliament

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/15

         Action brought on 15 July 2017 — TK v Parliament
   (Case T-446/17)
   (2017/C 357/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: TK (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

         In consequence:

               —

               Annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 26 August 2016 rejecting the applicant’s claims of 28 April 2016;

               —

               Insofar as necessary, annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 5 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 25 November 2016;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages in compensation for the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm valued ex aequo et bono at EUR 25 000;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 26 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 16 January 2017 inasmuch as it failed to remedy the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm and order the defendant to pay damages in compensation for the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm valued ex aequo et bono at EUR 25 000;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, concerning the decisions of 26 August 2016 and 5 April 2017 and comprising three parts:

                           —

                           as regards the application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the first claim of 28 April 2016, the first plea in law alleges infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), of Article 296 TFEU, of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and breach of the duty of care;

                           —

                           as regards the application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the second claim of 28 April 2016, the first plea alleges infringement of Article 2(2) of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations and of Article 41 of the Charter;

                           —

                           as regards the application for compensation, the applicant argues that the decisions caused her non-pecuniary harm which cannot be remedied by the annulment of the contested decisions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning the decision of 26 April 2017, alleging [infringement] of Article 41 of the Charter committed by the defendant and breach of its obligation to state reasons and duty of care, in that it claims that the decision against which the applicant brought a claim has been annulled and the decision taken to open an enquiry, and in that it deduces therefrom that there is no need to grant her claim for compensation. The applicant is also of the view that she has shown that she has suffered separate harm which cannot be remedied by annulment of the contested decision. In her submission, the defendant therefore should not only have annulled the decision challenged by the claim but should also have made good that harm.


title: Case C-428/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 4 August 2015 — Child and Family Agency (CAFA) v J. D.

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 4 August 2015 — Child and Family Agency (CAFA) v J. D.
   (Case C-428/15)
   (2015/C 320/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Child and Family Agency (CAFA)

      Defendant: J. D.

      Other party: R.P.D

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 15 of Regulation 2201/2003 (1) apply to public law care applications by a local authority in a member state, when if the Court of another member state assumes jurisdiction, it will necessitate the commencement of separate proceedings by a different body pursuant to a different legal code and possibly, if not probably, relating to different factual circumstances?

               2.

               If so, to what extent, if any, should a court consider the likely impact of any request under Article 15 if accepted, upon the right of freedom of movement of the individuals affected?

               3.

               If the ‘best interests of the child’ in Article 15.1 of Regulation 2201/2003 refers only to the decision as to forum, what factors may a court consider under this heading, which have not already been considered in determining whether another court is ‘better placed’?

               4.

               May a court for the purposes of Article 15 of Regulation 2201/2003 have regard to the substantive law, procedural provisions, or practice of the courts of the relevant member state?

               5.

               To what extent should a national court, in considering Article 15 of Regulation 2201/2003, have regard to the specific circumstances of the case, including the desire of a mother to move beyond the reach of the social services of her home state, and thereafter give birth to her child in another jurisdiction with a social services system she considers more favourable?

               6.

               Precisely what matters are to be considered by a national court in determining which court is best placed to determine the matter?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) no 1347/2000 OJ L 338, p. 1.