title: Case T-83/00: Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH and Schuck GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 163/29
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:           Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul part nine of Annex ID to Council Regulation (EC)
    No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the                The trade mark con-           verbal mark ‘LITE’ — application
    fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain         cerned:                       No 214932
    fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
    Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters              Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 5,
    where limitations in catch are required and amending                cerned:                       29, 30, 32 and 33 (essentially
    Regulation (EC) No 66/98;                                                                         foodstuffs and beverages)
— Annul point 1, 1.1, second subparagraph, indent (i), of               Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
    Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of                    fore the Board of Ap-         examiner
    27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort               peal:
    relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources,
    on the basis of the reasons stated, in so far as the Council        Grounds of claim:             — Denial by the Board of Appeal
    approved, for the year 2000, an analytical TAC for Zone                                               of the right to a fair hearing
    VIII and a common TAC is not possible; and                                                        — Misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                                  40/94
                                                                                — Misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           40/94
The pleas in law and supporting arguments are the same as
those put forward in Case T-54/00 FCPG and Others v Council.
                                                                        Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH and
                                                                        Schuck GmbH against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG                                                 Communities
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-83/00)
                         (Case T-79/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/58)
                        (2000/C 163/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  of Konstanz, Germany, and Schuck GmbH, of Schwaig,
4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG, of Cologne (Federal                    Germany, represented by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt,
Republic of Germany), represented by Maximilian Kinkeldey,              Bonn, Germany.
Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Grünecker, Kinkeldey, Stockmair &
Schwarthäusser, Munich (Federal Republic of Germany).
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March
— annul the decision adopted on 27 January 2000 by the                      2000;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the                — in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so
    appeal proceedings registered under number R 275/                       far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof
    1999-3;                                                                 requires the Member State Germany to withdraw the
                                                                            authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products con-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     taining norpseudoephredin;
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.6.2000
— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary                  By the present application they seek annulment of the
    costs.                                                               Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
                                                                         withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
                                                                         use which contain that substance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the
The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market              same as in Case T-76/00.
medicinal products containing norpseudoephredin in various
Member States.
By the present application they seek annulment of the
Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
use which contain that substance.
The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the               Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios Roussel,
same as in Case T-76/00.                                                 Limitada, and Roussel Iberica S.A. against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-85/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/60)
Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios Roussel,
Limitada, and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. against
       the Commission of the European Communities                                          (Language of the case: German)
                          (Case T-84/00)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                         (2000/C 163/59)                                 European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios
                                                                         Roussel, Limitada, of Mem Martins Codex, Portugal, and
                                                                         Roussel Iberica S.A., of Barcelona, Spain, represented by
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Germany.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicants claim that the Court should:
European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios
Roussel, Limitada, of Mem Martins Codex, Portugal, and                   — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March
Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l., of Puteaux, France,                   2000;
represented by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Ger-
many.                                                                    — in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so
                                                                             far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                  requires the Member States Portugal and Spain to withdraw
                                                                             the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
— annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March                          containing fenproporex;
    2000;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
— in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so                  costs.
    far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof requires
    the Member States France and Portugal to withdraw
    the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
    containing clobenzorex;                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
    costs.                                                               The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market
                                                                         medicinal products containing fenproporex in various Member
                                                                         States.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         By the present application they seek annulment of the
The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market              Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
medicinal products containing clobenzorex in various Member              withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
States.                                                                  use which contain that substance.


title: Case T-375/15: Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Germanwings v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/19

         Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Germanwings v Commission
   (Case T-375/15)
   (2015/C 337/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Germanwings GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2014 in Case SA.27339 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) — Zweibrücken airport and airlines that use that airport — namely

                           —

                           Article 1(2) in so far as it refers to the contract with Germanwings GmbH of 2006 and;

                           —

                           Article 3(3)(e);

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 11 May 2015, GESTDEM 2015/1288;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the first head of claim, the applicant relies, in essence, on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts in that they were incompletely presented
               The applicant alleges that the defendant’s presentation of some parts of the facts of the case were incorrect, contradictory and incomplete.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of reasoning
               In this regard, the applicant alleges in particular that the infrastructure expenditure that the Commission attributed to a 2006 contract between the applicant and the operator of Zweibrücken Airport was not itemised.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that no sums were to be recovered from the applicant
               The applicant claims in this regard that the defendant has not undertaken its own review of the attribution of the infrastructure costs at issue. Furthermore, the Commission’s attribution of those costs to the contract concluded by the applicant in 2006 was not lawful, since it runs contrary to the Commission’s existing decision-making practice and the Commission did not take account of the facts of the case that were publically available. In the alternative, in connection with this plea in law, the applicant claims that the attribution of those costs should have been significantly lower.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the Commission’s failure to justify the State character of the resources
               In this regard, the applicant claims that the Commission did not explain why the present case concerned State aid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging in the alternative infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations
               Finally, in relation to the first head of claim, the applicant claims in the alternative that any restitution of alleged State aid is precluded by the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
               In support of the second head of claim, the applicant claims, in essence, that the Commission did not state adequate reasons for the contested decision and misinterpreted Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1).

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


title: Case C-123/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 March 2014  — Itales ООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 March 2014 — Itales ООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   (Case C-123/14)
   2014/C 151/18
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Itales ООD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of the Council and of the European Parliament of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted so that, where goods are sold to a third party, a right to deduct input tax arises by virtue of their purchase, even if there is no proof that the previous supplier possessed goods of the same kind?

               2.

               Is the administrative practice of the Natsionalna Agentsia po prihodite (National Income Tax Agency), according to which persons liable to VAT within the meaning of the Zakon za danan varhu dobaveneta stoynost (VAT law) are denied the right to deduct input tax in cases where there is no proof of the origin of the goods, without suspicion of involvement in tax fraud having being expressed and/or objective evidence provided by the tax authorities which would indicate that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Removal from the register of C-330/96

text:
C 295/26                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27 . 9 . 97
removal from the register of Case C-58/96 : Kingdom of                           Removal from the register of C-330/96 (')
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,                                                  ( 97/C 295/50 )
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
                                                                        By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
(') OJ C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-330/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
         Removal from the register of C-2 17/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/47)
By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of                            Removal from the register of C-331/96 (')
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-2 17/96 : Kingdom of                                            ( 97/C 295/51 )
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities ,
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                                    By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
H OJ C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                             removal from the register of Case C-331/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-3 96/95 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/48 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-281/94 ( 1 )
By order of 19 June 1997 the President of the Court of                                               ( 97/C 295/52 )
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-396/95 : Federal
Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European                       By order of 26 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Communities, supported by French Republic and United                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                         removal from the register of Case C-281/94: Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
 w OJ C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                         H OJ C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
          Removal from the register of C-l 84/95 (')
                             ( 97/C 295/49 )                                       Removal from the register of C-97/97 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/53 )
 By order of 24 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 removal from the register of Case C-l 84/95 ( reference for             By order of 1 July 1997 the President of the Court of
 a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado do lo Social No 2,               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 Santiago do Compostela ): Mercedes Lores Guillfn v. Insti              removal from the register of Case C-97/97 ( reference for a
 tute Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la                    preliminary ruling from the Retten i Arhus ): Elly Bach v.
 Seguridad Social .                                                      Arhus Amtskommune.
 (') OJ C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .                                            (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.


               22.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 480/6

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Fürstliches Obergericht dated 4 November 2015 in the criminal proceedings against A
   (Case E-26/15)
   (2016/C 480/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 4 November 2015 from the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the criminal proceedings against A on the following questions:

               1.

               Must Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing be interpreted as meaning that ‘trust and company service providers’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(3)(c) and point (7)(b) of Article 3 of that Directive, are subject to the obligation to verify the customer’s identity as specified in Article 8(1)(a) and Article 9(1) and (6) of the Directive solely in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which they are established (in welchem [der Dienstleister für Trusts und Gesellschaften] seinen rechtlichen Sitz hat)?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative: what criteria must be used to determine whether ‘trust and company services providers’ are under the obligation to verify the customer’s identity as specified in Article 8(1)(a) and Article 9(1) and (6) of the Directive in accordance with the legislation of another Member State?

               3.

               Do the answers to Questions 1 and 2 also apply where the company for which administrative services are provided is a company not incorporated in a Member State?


title: Case T-91/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/20

         Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)
   (Case T-91/14)
   2014/C 151/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brookfield New Zealand Ltd (Havelock North, New Zealand)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office in Case A 004/2007;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community plant variety right: The applicant

      Community plant variety right concerned: Gala Schnitzer — Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 18759

      Decision of the Committee of the CPVO: Upheld the Community plant variety right

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Found the appeal well founded and annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 61 (1) (b), 55 (4), 59 (3) and 62 of the Council Regulation No. 2100/94.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2002 in Cases T-212/00: Nuove Industrie Molisane Srl v Commission of the European Communities (State Aid — Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Recipient company — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 156/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.6.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 30 January 2002                                                           of 5 March 2002
in Cases T-212/00: Nuove Industrie Molisane Srl v Com-                    in Case T-241/00: Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl against
           mission of the European Communities (1)                               Commission of the European Communities (1)
(State Aid — Decision declaring aid compatible with the                   (Agriculture — Reduction of Community financial assist-
common market — Action for annulment — Recipient                                        ance — Obligation to state reasons)
company — Legal interest in bringing proceedings —
                          Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/38)
                         (2002/C 156/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In Case T-241/00: Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl, established
                                                                          in Porto Viro (Italy), represented by G. Carraro, F. Mazzonetto
In Case T-212/00, Nuove Industrie Molisane Srl, established in            and G. Arendt, lawyers, with an address for service in
Sesto Campano (Italy), represented by I. Van Bael and F. Di               Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
Gianni, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities                 ties (Agents: E. de March, L. Visaggio and A. Dal Ferro) —
(Agents: V. Di Bucci, A. Abate and G.B. Conte): Application               application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision
for the partial annulment of Commission Decision SG(2000)D/               C (2000) 1754 of 11 July 2000 reducing the assistance granted
103923 of 30 May 2000 authorising State aid amounting to                  to the applicant in respect of project I/16/90/02, and second,
LIT 29176,69 million in favour of Nuove Industrie Molisane                for damages — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in order to carry out investment at Sesto Campano (Molise,                composed of B. Vesterdor, President, N. Forwood and H. Legal,
Italy), the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
(First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Ves-               has given a judgment on 5 March 2002, in which it:
terdorf, President, M. Vilaras, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and
N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in
which it:                                                                 1.    Annuls Decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July 2000;
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                          3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those of the
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                    application for interim relief.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.                                               (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-381/12: Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Borrajo Canelo and Others v OHIM

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/17

         Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Borrajo Canelo and Others v OHIM
   (Case T-381/12)
   2012/C 343/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ana Borrajo Canelo (Madrid, Spain), Carlos Borrajo Canelo (Madrid), Luis Borrajo Canelo (Madrid) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technoazúcar (Havana, Cuba)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Uphold the action and declare incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 May 2012 in Case R 2265/2010-2, rejecting the action brought by the applicants for revocation against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 24 September 2010, rejecting the application for revocation of Community trade mark No 4 602 454 PALMA MULATA for goods in Class 33, for ‘rum’;

               —

               Order the defendant and, as appropriate, the intervener, to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Nominative mark PALMA MULATA for goods in Class 33 — registered Community trade mark No 4 602 454

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Technoazúcar

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

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for revocation

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-33/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative — No new representative appointed — Applicant ceasing the answer the Tribunal’s requests — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/52

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-33/14)
   ((Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative - No new representative appointed - Applicant ceasing the answer the Tribunal’s requests - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 016/61)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: Z, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the request of 20 January 2013 for payment of the sum of EUR 700 000 in respect of compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred as a result of the decision to reassign the applicant to Brussels.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-33/14 Marcuccio v Commission.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs.


title: Case F-128/14: Action brought on 3 November 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/51

         Action brought on 3 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-128/14)
   (2015/C 034/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision to impose on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a 12-month period.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority, in the person of three Directors General of the Commission, dated 23 December 2013, by which the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step was imposed on the applicant for a 12-month period, taking effect on 31 December 2013, under Article 9(1)(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               in so far as necessary, also annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 22 July 2014, by which the applicant’s complaint, dated 21 March 2014, challenging the aforementioned disciplinary sentence of 23 December 2013, was rejected;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure, and in particular the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings, such as travel and subsistence expenses and the lawyers’ expenses and fees, under Article 105(c) of those Rules.


title: Case C-373/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/38

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon
   (Case C-373/11)
   2011/C 269/78
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou

      Defendants: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

      Question referred

   Is Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003, under which the Member States are permitted to set different retention percentages, up to the limit of 10 % of the component of national ceilings referred to in Article 41, for the making of an additional payment to producers, while observing the criteria set out in the third paragraph of Article 69, compatible, in permitting this differentiation as regards the retention percentage, with Articles 2 EC, 32 EC and 34 EC and with the objectives of ensuring a stable income for producers and maintaining rural areas?


title: Case C-451/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 12 August 2016 — MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 12 August 2016 — MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-451/16)
   (2016/C 383/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MB

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Question referred

   The question referred is whether Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1) precludes the imposition in national law of a requirement that, in addition to satisfying the physical, social and psychological criteria for recognizing a change of gender, a person who has changed gender must also be unmarried in order to qualify for a state retirement pension.

      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24


title: Case C-146/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 May 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Implementing enhanced cooperation — Creation of unitary patent protection — Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 — First paragraph of Article 118 TFEU — Legal basis — Article 291 TFEU — Delegation of powers to bodies outside the European Union — Principles of autonomy and uniform application of EU law)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 May 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-146/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Implementing enhanced cooperation - Creation of unitary patent protection - Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 - First paragraph of Article 118 TFEU - Legal basis - Article 291 TFEU - Delegation of powers to bodies outside the European Union - Principles of autonomy and uniform application of EU law))
   (2015/C 213/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Chamizo Llatas and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, M. Dean and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón, M. Balta and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux and T. Materne, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and M. Wolff, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, M. Möller and J. Kemper, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F.-X. Bréchot, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz and U. Persson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, acting as Agent, and by J. Stratford QC and T. Mitcheson, Barrister) and European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, T. van Rijn, B. Smulders and F. Bulst, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


C 19/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               25.1.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-254/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-227/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 19/45)                                                       (2003/C 19/47)
By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-254/01:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Republic of                 from the register of Case C-227/02: Commission of the
Finland.                                                             European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 01.09.2001.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 180, 27.07.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-280/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 19/46)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-268/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/48)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-280/01
(Referral for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal            By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
(England & Wales) (Civil Division)): Brian Watson v First            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA.           from the register of Case C-268/02: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 289, 13.10.2001.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 219, 14.09.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-298/95 Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC within the periods prescribed - Quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life - Quality required of shellfish waters)

text:
22 . 2 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 54/5
Diretti di Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del                General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
Polesine, Cirillo Brena, represented by Ivone Cacciavillani,          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
of the Venice Bar, with an address for service in                     1996 , in which it has ruled :
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
Albert ler — appeal against the order of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities of                         Consideration in the light of the grounds stated in the
21 February 1995 in Case T- 117/94 Associazione                       order for reference of Articles 1 (2) and 2 (2) of
Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo and Others v.                   Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/94 of 31 January
Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-455, seeking to have that                  1994 laying down detailed rules for the application of
order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being           Council Regulation (EC) No 130/94 with regard to the
the Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:                   import arrangements for frozen beef falling within
Lucio Gussetti ), Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele —               CN code 0202 and products falling within CN code
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini ,              0206 29 91 has disclosed no factor capable of affecting
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,               their validity.
G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General ; R. Grass,                     (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in
which it:
1 . dismisses the appeal;
2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs.                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                                             of 12 December 1996
                                                                      in   Case C-298/95 Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (')
                                                                      (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure
                                                                      to transpose Directives 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 within the periods prescribed — Quality of fresh waters
                          (First Chamber)                             needing protection or improvement in order to support
                                                                             fish life — Quality required of shellfish waters)
                      of 12 December 1996
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/09 )
in Case C-241/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): The
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Queen v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex
         parte: Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and Others (')
(Frozen beef — Common import rules — Community                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                   tariff quota — Newcomers)                                    published in the European Court Reports)
                            ( 97/C 54/08 )
                                                                      In Case C-298/95 : Commission of the European
                 (Language of the case: English)                      Communities ( Agent: Gotz zur Hausen ) v. Federal
                                                                      Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst Roder and Bernd
                                                                      Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        adopt within the periods prescribed all the measures
           published in the European Court Reports)                   necessary to comply with Articles 3 and 5 of Council
                                                                      Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of
In Case C-241 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order
                                                                      to support fish life ( OJ No L 222, 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 1 ) and
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's              Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of
Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings            30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish
pending before that court between The Queen and the                   waters ( OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979, p. 47), the Federal
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and Other — on the validity of                under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 2 ( 2 ) of Commission Regulation ( EC )          composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),
No 214/94 of 31 January 1994 laying down detailed rules                President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward , J.
 for the application of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94            P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
 with regard to the import arrangements for frozen beef                General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
 falling within CN code 0202 and products falling within               12 December 1996 , in which it:
 CN code 0206 29 91 ( OJ No L 27, 1 . 2 . 1994, p. 46 ) —
 the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon,
 President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and                         1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
 M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate                   prescribed all the measures necessary to comply with
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/6             I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 2 . 97
    Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC of                    man and the environment of substances notified in
     18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing                   accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ
    protection or improvement in order to support fish life                No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p. 9 ),
    and with Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 79/923/
     EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of                 — Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October 1993
     shellfish waters, the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                           adapting to technical progress Council Directive 91 /
    failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                           157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing
                                                                           certain dangerous substances ( OJ No L 264, 23 . 10 .
2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                      1993 , p. 51 ), and
     costs .
                                                                       — Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC of 25 November
C ) OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .                                         1993 laying down Annex VII D , containing
                                                                           information required for the technical dossier referred
                                                                           to in Article 12 of the seventh amendment of Council
                                                                           Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 294 , 30 . 11 . 1993 ,
                                                                           p. 21 ),
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       under the EC Treaty, — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                       composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , President of the
                       of 12 December 1996                             Chamber, L. Sevon, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), J. -P.
                                                                       Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
in Joined Cases C-218/96, C-219/96, C-220/96, C-221/96                 General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
and C-222/96 Commission of the European Communities                    12 December 1996 , in which it rules :
                  v. Kingdom of Belgium (')
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose                  1 . By not adopting within the prescribed time-limits the
Directives 92/32/EEC, 92/69/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/86/                         laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                      EEC and 93/105/EEC)                                  necessary to comply with:
                             ( 97/C 54/10 )
                                                                           — Council Directive 92/32/EEC of 30 April 1992
                                                                               amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/
                (Language of the case: French)                                 EEC on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions relating
                                                                               to the classification, packaging and labelling of
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 dangerous substances,
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           — Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of 31 July 1992
In Joined Cases C-218/96 , C-219/96 , C-220/96 , C-221 /96                     adapting to technical progress for the seventeenth
and C-222/96 : Commission of the European Communities                          time Council Directive 67/548/EEC,
( Agent : G. zur Hausen, assisted by J. -J. Evrard ), v.
Kingdom of Belgium ( Agents : A.-M . Snyers, Cases C-218/                  — Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993
96 , C-220/96, C-221 /96 and C-222/96 ; and R. Foucart,                        laying down the principles for assessment of risks
Case C-219/96 ) — application for a declaration that, by                       to man and the environment of substances notified
not adopting or not communicating within the prescribed                        in accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC,
time-limits the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with :                                      — Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October
                                                                                1993 adapting to technical progress Council
                                                                               Directive      91 /157/EEC     on     batteries      and
— Council Directive 92/32/EEC of 30 April 1992
     amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/EEC                        accumulators        containing   certain    dangerous
                                                                               substances, and
     on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions relating to the classification,
     packaging and labelling of dangerous substances ( OJ                  — Commission Directive 93/105/EC of 25 November
     No L 154, 5 . 6 . 1992 , p. 1 ),                                           1993 laying down Annex VII D, containing
                                                                               information required for the technical dossier
                                                                               referred to in Article 12 of the seventh amendment
— Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of 31 July 1992                               of Council Directive 67/548/EEC,
     adapting to technical progress for the 17th time
     Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 383 , 29 . 12 .
     1992 , p. 113 ),                                                      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           obligations under Article 3 of Directive 92/32, Article 3
                                                                           of Directive 92/69, Article 8 of Directive 93/67,
— Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993                           Article 7 of Directive 93/86 and Article 2 of Directive
     laying down the principles for assessment of risks to                 93 /105 .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2005 in Case T-139/01 Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co v Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person individually concerned — Action for damages)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 3 February 2005
   in Case T-139/01 Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Imports from ACP States and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Person individually concerned - Action for damages)
   (2005/C 93/48)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-139/01: Comafrica SpA, established in Genoa (Italy) and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by B. O'Connor, Solicitor, and P. Bastos-Martin, Barrister, supported by Simba SpA, established in Milan (Italy), represented by S. Carbone and F. Munari, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: initially L. Visaggio, M. Niejahr and K. Fitch, and subsequently L. Visaggio and K. Fitch, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Kingdom of Spain, (Agents: initially R. Silva de Lapuerta, and subsequently L. Fraguas Gadea, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action, first, for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 of 7 June 2001 fixing the adjustment coefficients to be applied to each traditional operator's reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of bananas (OJ 2001 L 153, p. 12), and, second, an action for compensation for damage allegedly caused to the applicants by the adoption of Regulations No 896/2001 and No 1121/2001 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for annulment;

               2.

               Dismisses as unfounded the claim for compensation;

               3.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the main proceedings and in the interim proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the intervening parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case C-15/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2015  — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health srl

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2015 — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health srl
   (Case C-15/15)
   (2015/C 118/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: New Valmar BVBA

      Defendant: Global Pharmacies Partner Health srl

      Question referred

   Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federal unit of a Member State, such as, in the present case, the Flemish Community in the Federal State of Belgium, which requires every undertaking which has its place of establishment within the territory of that unit to draw up, pursuant to Article 52 of the Laws of 18 July 1966 on the use of languages in administrative matters (Belgisch Staatsblad of 2 August 1966) in conjunction with Article 10 of the Decree of the Flemish Community of 19 July 1973 (Belgisch Staatsblad of 6 September 1973), invoices which are of a cross-border character exclusively in the official language of that federal unit, on pain of nullity of those invoices, which nullity is to be determined by the courts of their own motion?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 30 November 1995 in Case C-118/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 92/33/EEC and 92/34/EEC - Failure to transpose)

text:
No C 31 /6          MEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 2 . 96
     governing an archipelago forming part ofthe territory of               decision ordering expulsion before a competent
     that State require all petroleum product wholesalers                   authority has given its opinion.
     wishing to extend their activities to that part of the
     national territory to supply a certain number of islands
     in the archipelago, having regard to the problems of             2 . Article 9 (1 ) of Directive 64/221 /EEC does not preclude
     supplying insular regions.                                             the competent authority referred to in that provision
                                                                            from being appointed by the same administrative
                                                                            authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion,
2 . Such rules are compatible with Article 85, read in                      provided that the competent authority can perform its
     conjunction with the second paragraph ofArticle 5, and                 duties in absolute independence and is not subject to any
     with Article 30 of the EC Treaty.                                      control by the authority empowered to take the
                                                                            measures provided for in the Directive. It is for the
                                                                            national court to determine in each case whether those
3 . Article 102 (1 ) of the EC Treaty does not give rise to
     individual rights which the courts must protect.                       requirements have been met.
                                                                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
(') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                                                        ( Fifth Chamber)
                    of 30 November 1995                                                    of 30 November 1995
in Case C-l 75/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-l 18/95 : Commission of the European
the Court of Appeal ): The Queen v. Secretary of State for the                       Communities v. Italian Republic ( J )
       Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher ( ] )                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations —                      Directives 92/33/EEC and 92/34/EEC — Failure to
Decisions concerning the control of foreign nationals —                                               transpose)
Decision ordering expulsion — Prior opinion of the                                                 ( 96/C 31 / 12 )
                     competent authority)
                          ( 96/C 31 / 11 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-175/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal, London, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             In Case C-l 18/95 : Commission of the European
court between The Queen and Secretary of State for the                Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian Republic
Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher — on the                     ( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Maurizio Fiorilli ) —
interpretation of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of                   application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within
25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures              the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals            administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
which are justified on grounds of public policy, public               Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of
security or public health ( OJ, English Special Edition               vegetable propagating and planting material, other than
 1963-1964, p. 117 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                   seed ( OJ 1992 , No L 157, p. 1 ) and Council Directive
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,                  92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit plant
G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G.             propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate                 production ( OJ 1992 , No L 157, p. 10 ), the Italian Republic
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has            has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
given a judgment on 30 November 1995 , the operative part              Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
of which is as follows :                                              President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann,
                                                                      P. Jann and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
                                                                       Advocate General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
 1 . Article 9 (I ) of Council Directive 64/221 /EEC of                30 November 1995 the operative part of which is as
     25 February 1964 on the coordination of special                   follows :
     measures concerning the movement and residence of
     foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
     public policy, public security or public health must be           1 . By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of urgency, it               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     prohibits the administrative authority from taking a                    Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 2 . 96             EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 31 /7
      marketing of vegetable propagating and planting                   2 . The term 'establishment' appearing in Article 1 (1 ) (a) of
      material, other than seed and Council Directive                        the aforesaid directive must be understood as meaning,
      92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit                   depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the
      plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for               workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their
      fruit production, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil            duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an
      its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 92/33/EEC                'establishment', for the unit in question to be endowed
      and Article 26 of Directive 92/34/EEC.                                 with a management which can independently effect
                                                                             collective redundancies .
2 . The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber )                                                    of 7 December 1995 )
                                                                        in Case C-472/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      of 7 December 1995
                                                                        the Pretore di Lecce ): Luigi Spano and Others v. Fiat
    in Case C-449/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                    Geotech SpA and Fiat Hitachi Excavators SpA ( 1 )
           from the 0stre Landsret): Rockfon A/S v.                     (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
             Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark ( )                                               of undertakings)
(Collective redundancies — Article 1 of Directive                                                    ( 96/C 31 /14 )
75/129/EEC — Definition of 'establishment' — Company
                    forming part of a group)
                            ( 96/C 31 / 13 )                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
                 (Language of the case: Danish)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            In Case C-472/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        of the EC Treaty by the Pretore di Lecce ( Magistrate's
                                                                        Court, Lecce ) (Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-449/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177             proceeding pending before that court between Luigi Spano
of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern Regional             and Others and Fiat Geotech SpA and Fiat Hitachi
Court ) ( Denmark ) for a preliminary ruling in the                     Excavators SpA on the interpretation of Council Directive
proceedings pending before that court between Rockfon A/S               77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of
and Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark — on the                         the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 75/129/EEC             employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
of 17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of                 businesses or parts of businesses ( OJ 1977, No L 61 , p. 26 )
the Member States relating to collective redundancies ( OJ              — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of J. -P. Puissochet
1975 , No L 48 , p. 29 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                 ( Rapporteur ), acting as President of the Chamber, J. C.
composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), President of                Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevon,
the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges; G. Cosmas,                   Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Advocate General; H. A. Ruhl, Principal Administrator, for              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 1995 , in             7 December 1995, in which it rules :
which it rules :
                                                                        Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
1 . Article I (1 ) (a) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of              the safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of
      the Member States relating to collective redundancies is          transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
      to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude            is applicable to the transfer of an undertaking which under
      two or more interrelated undertakings in a group,                 Article 2 (5) (c) of Italian Law No 675 of 12 August 1977
      neither or none of which has decisive influence over the          has been declared to be in critical difficulties.
      other or others, from establishing a joint recruitment
      and dismissal department so that, in particular,                   (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
      dismissals on grounds of redundancy in one of the
      undertakings can take place only with that department's
      approval.


title: Case T-625/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/46

         Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE)
   (Case T-625/15)
   (2016/C 016/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SPA VILLAGE’ — Application for registration No 3 841 202

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2015 in Case R 1954/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-91/01: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Recommendation concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises — Guidelines for State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises — Independence criterion — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-91/01: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Recommendation concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises - Guidelines for State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises - Independence criterion - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)
   (2004/C 118/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-91/01: Italian Republic (Agent: I. Braguglia, assisted by D. Del Gaizo), with an address for service in Luxembourg v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci and J. M. Flett), with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/779/EC of 15 November 2000 on the State aid which Italy is planning to grant to Solar Tech Srl (OJ 2001 L 292, p. 45), in so far as it did not allow the application to that aid of the bonus of 15 % gross grant equivalent provided for for small and medium-sized enterprises — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General: F. G. Jacobs; Registrar: M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2001.


title: Case C-10/07: Order of the President of the Court of 17 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-10/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/58)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-224/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia
   (Case C-224/04)
   (2004/C 201/16)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gorizia (District Court, Gorizia, Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia on the following question:

               —

               Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and milk products must therefore be determined in the light of the provisions of Community law under which that levy was introduced and the basic rules governing its application were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28 December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

      (1)  OJ L 90 of 1. 4. 1984, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 405 of 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.


title: Case F-54/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 June 2007 — Davis and Others v Council (Staff cases — Officials — Pensions — Weightings — Retirement after the entry into force of the version of the Staff Regulations applicable from 1 May 2004 — Application of weightings calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country of residence of retired officials — Transitional scheme — Abolition of weightings for pension rights acquired after the entry into force of the version of the Staff Regulations applicable from 1 May 2004 )

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 June 2007 — Davis and Others v Council
   (Case F-54/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Pensions - Weightings - Retirement after the entry into force of the version of the Staff Regulations applicable from 1 May 2004 - Application of weightings calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country of residence of retired officials - Transitional scheme - Abolition of weightings for pension rights acquired after the entry into force of the version of the Staff Regulations applicable from 1 May 2004)
   (2007/C 183/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Davis and Others (Bolton, United Kingdom) and three Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Council's decisions determining the applicants' pension entitlements, on the grounds that the portion of their pension entitlement acquired after 30 April 2004 is not multiplied by a weighting, and that the weighting by which the portion of their pension entitlement acquired before 30 April 2004 is multiplied differs from that by which the remuneration of officials in active employment in the United Kingdom or Denmark is multiplied.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006, p. 28.


title: Case C-324/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Münster by order of 21 August 2000 in the case of Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt

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


title: Case C-28/09: Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/28

         Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-28/09)
   (2009/C 69/51)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by prohibiting lorries with a total weight of more than 7.5 tonnes, carrying certain goods, from being driven on a section of the A12 motorway, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 29 EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The adoption of a sectoral prohibition against driving lorries with a total weight of more than 7.5 tonnes, loaded with certain goods, on the A12 motorway must be regarded as constituting a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction and is thus incompatible with Articles 28 EC and 29 EC. The disputed measure is neither appropriate nor necessary to achieve the improvement in air quality on the A12 required by Community law as it is not properly focused and does not take less restrictive measures, such as, for instance, permanent speed restrictions or emissions-dependent prohibitions on driving, into consideration. Furthermore, the defendant has not proved that there is a suitable alterative to road transport.


title: Case T-236/17: Action brought on 17 April 2017 — Balti Gaas v Commission and INEA

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/30

         Action brought on 17 April 2017 — Balti Gaas v Commission and INEA
   (Case T-236/17)
   (2017/C 221/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Balti Gaas OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: E. Tamm and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendants decision of 17 February 2017 Ref Ares(2017)890302 (1);

               —

               order the defendants to bear their costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant submits that the defendants have not ensured that the procedures followed in awarding grants would have complied with the principles of legality, transparency and sound administration and relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging lack of competence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement on the ground of failure to give a statement of reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a lack of statement of reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of material accuracy of the statement of reasons.

      (1)  Decision taken in relation to Commission’s Implementing Decision C(2016)1587 final of 17/03/2016 on amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)2080 establishing the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020


title: Case C-88/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 February 2017 — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Ltd

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 February 2017 — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Ltd
   (Case C-88/17)
   (2017/C 112/40)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy

      Defendant: Abnormal Load Services (International) Ltd

      Question referred

   How are the place or places where the service is provided to be determined in accordance with the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) where a contract for the carriage of goods between Member States is concerned and the transport consists of several parts in which different means of transport are used?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).