title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  17 November 2005  in Case C-90/03: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 — Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector — Detailed rules and arrangements — Substantial procedural defect — Infringement of Article 254 EC)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 17 November 2005
   in Case C-90/03: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Fisheries - Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 - Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector - Detailed rules and arrangements - Substantial procedural defect - Infringement of Article 254 EC)
   (2006/C 22/01)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-90/03 Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), supported by Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos and G. Kanellopoulos) and French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and A. Colomb) v Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón), supported by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and S. Pardo Quintillán) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 28 February 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), A. Borg Barthet and U. Lõhmus, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Hellenic Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case T-270/09: Action brought on 13 July 2009 — PVS v OHIM — MeDiTA Medizinischer Kurierdienst (medidata)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/36

         Action brought on 13 July 2009 — PVS v OHIM — MeDiTA Medizinischer Kurierdienst (medidata)
   (Case T-270/09)
   2009/C 220/77
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PVS — Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH (Mühlheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: F. Lindenberg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- u. Handelsg. mbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 14 May 2009 in Appeal R 1724/2007-4 and reject the opposition;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the action and of the appeal proceedings;

               —

               Enter judgment against the defendant without an oral hearing in its absence, in so far as it does not enter a defence in the appropriate form and in accordance within the prescribed time-limit.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: PVS

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘medidata’ in the colours blue, grey and white for services in Classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 44 (Application No 4 495 842)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- u. Handelsg. mbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘MeDiTA’ for services in Classes 35 and 39, whereas the opposition is directed against registration in Class 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Grant of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2003 in Case T-16/02: Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive mark — Distinctive character acquired through use — Word mark TDI — Right to be heard — Scope of the duty to state reasons — Consequences of a breach of the duty to state reasons)

text:
C 71/24                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.3.2004
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 December 2003
                      of 3 December 2003
                                                                          in Case T-16/02: Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                          the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
in Case T-208/01: Volkswagen Ag v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                          — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive mark —
                                                                          Distinctive character acquired through use — Word mark
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicle —                            TDI — Right to be heard — Scope of the duty to state
Article 81(1) EC Price agreement — Meaning of agreement                   reasons — Consequences of a breach of the duty to state
           — Proof of the existence of an agreement)                                                    reasons)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/43)
                         (2004/C 71/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-16/02, Audi AG, established in Ingolstadt (Germany),
                                                                          represented by L. von Zumbusch, lawyer, v Office for Harmon-
                                                                          isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
In Case T-208/01, Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg                 (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider): Action
(Germany), represented by R. Bechtold, lawyer, v Commission               against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
of the European Communities (Agent: W. Mölls): Application                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/711/EC of                       Designs) of 8 November 2001 (Case R 652/2000-1), as
29 June 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the             rectified by decision of 19 November 2001, on the application
EC Treaty (Case COMP/F-2/36.693 Volkswagen) (OJ 2001                      for registration of the word mark TDI as a Community trade
L 262, p. 14) or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of          mark, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
the fine imposed on the applicant, the Court of First Instance            of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi           D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the            judgment on 3 December 2003, in which it:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December 2003, in
which it:
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the action;
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2001/711/EC of 29 June 2001              2.    Orders the applicant to bear three quarters of its own costs
      relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty                and pay three quarters of those incurred by the Office for
      (Case COMP/F-2/36.693 — Volkswagen);                                      Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs);
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                             3.    Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear one quarter of its own costs
                                                                                and pay one quarter of those incurred by the applicant.
(1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Case F-58/13: Action brought on 21 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/26

         Action brought on 21 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-58/13)
   2013/C 352/51
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the infringement alleged of the applicant’s right to confidentiality caused by the defendant’s sending a letter concerning his situation to a lawyer who did not represent him.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the request sent by the applicant to the Commission on 9 March 2012 and duly received by the Commission;

               —

               annul the note of 28 June 2012;

               —

               annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint against the decision rejecting the request of 9 March 2012, sent by the applicant to the Commission on 26 September 2012 and duly received by the Commission;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the note of 1 February 2013;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000,00, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, and annual capitalisation, with effect from 9 March 2012 until actual payment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


C 289/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.10.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-132/00 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)): Kraft Jacobs
                                                                    Suchard Österreich GmbH v Eduard Mitsche and Others.
                       (2001/C 289/44)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
By order of 10 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-132/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-382/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/48)
                                                                    By order of 27 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-191/00 (1)               the register of Case C-382/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Pontevedra):
                                                                    Gardenia Abal Pombo v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad
                       (2001/C 289/45)                              Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social.
By order of 8 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-191/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-397/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/49)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-306/00 (1)               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-397/00: Commission of the European
                       (2001/C 289/46)                              Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-306/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-401/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/50)
                                                                    By order of 13 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-314/00 (1)               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-401/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                       (2001/C 289/47)
By order of 12 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-314/00: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case C-108/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 26 February 2010 — Ivana Scattolon v Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 26 February 2010 — Ivana Scattolon v Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca
   (Case C-108/10)
   2010/C 134/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ivana Scattolon

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (1) and/or Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, (2) or the various rules of Community law considered relevant be interpreted as meaning that the latter are applicable to a situation in which staff providing auxiliary cleaning and maintenance services in State educational establishments are transferred from local authorities (municipalities and provinces) to the employment of the State, where the transfer has led to the assumption of obligations not only in respect of the activities in question and the legal relationships with all the (cleaning) staff concerned, but also in respect of the contracts entered into with private companies for the provision of those services?

               2.

               Must the continuation of the employment relationship, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 (incorporated, together with Council Directive 98/50/EC amending Directive 77/187, (3) in Directive 2001/23/EC), be interpreted as meaning that the transferee’s pecuniary payments linked to length of service must take into account all the years worked by the staff transferred, including those in the employment of the transferor?

               3.

               Must Article 3 of Directive 77/187 and/or Council Directives 98/50/EC and 2001/23/EC be interpreted as meaning that the employee’s rights transferred to the transferee also include the advantages acquired by that employee while employed by the transferor, such as those relating to length of service, if rights of a financial nature are attached thereto under the collective agreement applicable to the transferee?

               4.

               Must the general Community-law principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, procedural equity, effective judicial protection, and the right to an independent tribunal and, more generally, to a fair hearing, guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by Article 1(8) of the Treaty of Lisbon and to which Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union refers) — in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and with Articles 46, 47 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, as implemented by the Treaty of Lisbon — be interpreted as precluding the adoption by the Italian State, after a significant period of time (5 years), of a specific interpretative provision which is at variance with the wording to be interpreted and in conflict with the consistent and settled interpretation of the institution responsible for ensuring uniform interpretation of the law [the Corte di cassazione], a provision which, moreover, is relevant for the purpose of resolving disputes to which the Italian State is a party?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

      (3)  OJ 1998 L 201, p. 88.


title: Joined Cases T-114/07 and T-115/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Community figurative mark LAST MINUTE TOUR — Earlier unregistered national mark LASTMINUTE.COM — Relative ground for refusal — Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark — Action for passing off — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR)
   (Joined Cases T-114/07 and T-115/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Community figurative mark LAST MINUTE TOUR - Earlier unregistered national mark LASTMINUTE.COM - Relative ground for refusal - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Action for passing off - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 180/83
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Last Minute Network Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Last Minute SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Locurto, lawyers)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the Decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Cases R 256/2006-2 and R 291/2006-2), concerning cancellation proceedings between Last Minute Network Ltd and Last Minute Tour SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Cases R 256/2006-2 and R 291/2006-2);

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the second head of claim of Last Minute Network Ltd;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Last Minute Network;

               4.

               Orders Last Minute Tour SpA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-475/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufsgericht für Heilberufe bei dem Verwaltungsgericht Gießen (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2011 — Disciplinary proceedings against Kostas Konstantinides

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufsgericht für Heilberufe bei dem Verwaltungsgericht Gießen (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2011 — Disciplinary proceedings against Kostas Konstantinides
   (Case C-475/11)
   2011/C 355/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Berufsgericht für Heilberufe bei dem Verwaltungsgericht Gießen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant: Kostas Konstantinides

      Other party: Landesärztekammer Hessen

      Questions referred

               A.

               With regard to Article 5(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (Directive 2005/36/EC): (1)

                           1.

                           Is Paragraph 12(1) of the Berufsordnung für die Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Hessen (Professional Code of Conduct for the Medical Profession in Hesse) of 2 September 1998 (Hessisches Ärzteblatt (HÄBI.) 1998, p. I–VIII), last amended on 1 December 2008 (HÄBI. 2009, p. 749) — ‘the Code of Conduct’ — a professional rule the breach of which by the service provider in the host State may give rise to professional disciplinary proceedings concerning serious professional malpractice which is directly and specifically linked to consumer protection and safety?

                           2.

                           If so, does this also hold in the event that no relevant fee code exists for the operation performed by the service provider (here: the doctor) in the applicable Gebührenordnung für Ärzte (Regulation on Medical Fees) of the host State?

                           3.

                           Are the provisions on unprofessional advertising (Paragraph 27(1)-(3) in conjunction with Section D, point 13 of the Code of Conduct) professional rules the breach of which by the service provider in the host State may give rise to professional disciplinary proceedings concerning serious professional malpractice which is directly and specifically linked to consumer protection and safety?

               B.

               With regard to letter (a) of the first sentence of Article 6 of Directive 2005/36/EC:
               Do the rules adopted in implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC amending Paragraph 3(1) and (3) of the Hessisches Gesetz über die Berufsvertretungen, die Berufsausübung, die Weiterbildung und die Berufsgerichtsbarkeit der Ärzte, Zahnärzte, Tierärzte, Apotheker, Psychologischen Psychotherapeuten und Kinder- und Jugendlichenpsychotherapeuten (Hesse Law on professional associations, professional practice, further training and jurisdiction of professional disciplinary tribunals for doctors, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists, psychological psychotherapists and child and youth psychotherapists (‘Law on the medical profession’)), in the version published on 7 February 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt (GVBl.) I, p. 123), last amended by the Law of 24 March 2010 (GVBl. I, p. 123), by the Drittes Gesetz zur Änderung des Heilberufsgesetzes (Third Law amending the Law on the medical profession) of 16 October 2006 (GVBl. I, p. 519), represent the correct implementation of the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2005/36/EC, in that both the relevant codes of conduct and the provisions governing jurisdiction of professional disciplinary tribunals in the Sixth Section of the Law on the medical profession are declared to be fully applicable to service providers (here: doctors) who are working temporarily in the host State exercising freedom to provide services under Article 57 TFEU (formerly Article 50 EC)?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.


title: Case T-488/10: Action brought on 11 October 2010 — France v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/27

         Action brought on 11 October 2010 — France v Commission
   (Case T-488/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of European Commission Decision No C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France. That decision cancels in its entirety the contribution of the ERDF allocated to the major project entitled ‘Village de vacances Club Méditerranée — Les Boucaniers’ of EUR 12 460 000.
   The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its action.
   By its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 2(1) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1), by taking the view that the works contracts concluded for the renovation and extension of ‘Club Méditerranée — Les Boucaniers’ constituted works contracts directly subsidised by more than 50 % by the contracting authorities. Those contracts were subsidised by only 29,92 % of the cost of the project. The tax relief which the partners of the private companies received on account of their investment in the project cannot constitute a subsidy within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC.
   By its second plea in law, which is divided into two parts, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC by taking the view that the works contracts for the renovation and extension of ‘Club Méditerranée — Les Boucaniers’ concerned building work for facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure within the meaning of that provision.
   First, the applicant takes the view that the Commission should have taken account of the general industrial classification of economic activities within the European Communities (NACE) established by Regulation No 3037/90 (2) to which Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC refers. That classification distinguishes between hotels and restaurants on one hand and recreational, cultural and sporting activities on the other.
   Second, the applicant takes the view that Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC concerns contracts which, by their very nature, fall within the traditional interests of the contracting authorities and that it therefore concerns facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure open to all and not those reserved for private clients.
   By its third plea, the applicant submits that the Commission has breached the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU by failing to set out clearly and unequivocally the reasons why the renovation and extension works for ‘Club Méditerranée — Les Boucaniers’ concerned building work for facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC.
   By its fourth plea in law, the applicant submits, in the alternative, that the Commission has breached the principle of proportionality by adopting a rate of correction of 100 % for the ERDF’s subsidy, even though the works relating to the sports and leisure facilities are slightly below 10 % of the project.

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 of 9 October 1990 on the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 1999 in Case C-350/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Wilfried Monsees v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten (Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC) - Free movement of goods - Prohibition of quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect - Derogations - Protection of health and life of animals - International transport of live animals for slaughter)

text:
C 204/14                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           17.7.1999
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    stelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener
                                                                            Gebietskrankenkasse — on the interpretation of Article 119
                            of 11 May 1999                                  of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) and
                                                                            Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
in Case C-255/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the Handelsgericht Wien): Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH v                        the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
                   Löwa Warenhandel GmbH (1)                                women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) — the Court, composed of:
                                                                            G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rappor-
(Articles 30 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 teur), G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C.
Articles 28 EC and 43 EC) — Industrial and commercial                       Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragne-
                       property — Trade name)                               malm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
                                                                            D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
                            (1999/C 204/25)                                 trar, has given a judgment on 11 May 1999, in which it has
                                                                            ruled:
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            The term ‘the same work’ does not apply, for the purposes of Article
                                                                            119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) or
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                     in the European Court Reports)                         approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                            application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, where
In Case C-255/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                  the same activities are performed over a considerable length of time
EC (ex Article 177) from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) for              by persons the basis of whose qualification to exercise their profession
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 is different.
court between Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH and Löwa Waren-
handel GmbH — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 52
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and                  (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
43 EC) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, P.J.G. Kapteyn and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.L. Mur-
ray, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; J.
Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment or 11 May 1999, in                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Articles 30 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles
28 EC and 43 EC) do not preclude a provision of national law which                                    of 11 May 1999
prohibits, where there is a risk of confusion, the use of a trade name
as the specific designation of an undertaking.                              in Case C-350/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Wilfried Monsees v
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                                Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten (1)
                                                                            (Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                            amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC) — Free movement
                                                                            of goods — Prohibition of quantitative restrictions and
                                                                            measures having equivalent effect — Derogations — Protec-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    tion of health and life of animals — International transport
                                                                                of live animals for slaughter)
                            of 11 May 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 204/27)
in Case C-309/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Angestelltenbetriebsrat der                                       (Language of the case: German)
Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener Gebietskranken-
                                kasse (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                  (Equal pay for men and women)                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (1999/C 204/26)                                 In Case C-350/97: reference to the Court under Article
                                                                            234 EC (ex Article 177) by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
                                                                            (Administrative Court), Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    (Language of the case: German)                          proceedings pending before that court between Wilfried
                                                                            Monsees and Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Joined party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr —
                     in the European Court Reports)                         on the interpretation of Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC) and
In Case C-309/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                  other provisions of Community law relating to the transport
EC (ex Article 177) by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher                   of live animals for slaughter — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Regional Court), Vienna, Austria for a preliminary ruling in                composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
the proceedings pending before that court between Ange-                     J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 204/15
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                 A rule such as that in Article 3(1) of the Verordening Stoffen met
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   sympathico mimetische werking (PVV) 1991, read in conjunction
judgment on 11 May 1999, in which it has ruled:                             with Article 2 of that Verordening, constitutes a technical regulation
                                                                            within the meaning of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March
On a correct interpretation of Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC             1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC), a                 the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by
Member State is prevented from restricting the transport by road of         Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988, in respect of
animals for slaughter by requiring such transport to be carried out         which the Member State which adopted it is exempt, under Article
only as far as the nearest suitable abattoir within national territory      10 of that directive, from the obligation to notify the Commission
and under conditions such that, upon observance of the motor vehicle        laid down in Article 8 thereof.
and traffic regulations, a total journey time of six hours and a
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, account being taken of         (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
only half of the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway.
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            of 19 May 1999
                           of 11 May 1999                                   in Case C-6/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Joined Cases C-425/97 to C 427/97 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te                                  (State aid — Definition — Tax credit — Recovery —
’s-Hertogenbosch): Criminal proceedings against Adrianus                                          Absolute impossibility)
Albers (C-425/97) Martinus Van den Berkmortel (C-
        426/97) and Leon Nuchelmans (C-427/97) (1)                                                    (1999/C 204/29)
(Directive 83/189/EEC — Technical regulations — Obli-
    gation to notify — Prohibition on growth promoters)                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (1999/C 204/28)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            In Case C-6/97: Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto Leanza,
                                                                            assisted by Oscar Fiumara) v Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Communities (Agents: Laura Pignataro, Anders C. Jessen
                    in the European Court Reports)                          and Enrico Altieri) — application for the annulment of
                                                                            Commission Decision 97/270/EC of 22 October 1996 on a
In Joined Cases C-425/97 to C-427/97: references to the Court               tax credit scheme introduced by Italy for professional road
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof                     hauliers (C 45/95 ex NN 48/95) (OJ 1997 L 106, p. 22) — the
(Regional Court of Appeal), ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands),                 Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending                of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), G.F. Mancini, H. Rag-
before that court against Adrianus Albers (C-425/97) Martinus               nemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; Advocate General; D. Ruiz-
Van den Berkmortel (C-426/97) and Leon Nuchelmans (C-                       Jarabo Colomer; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
427/97) — on the interpretation of Council Directive                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, in which it:
83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for
the provision of information in the field of technical standards            1. Dismisses the application;
and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as amended by Council
Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988 (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75)                 2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
mann (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger,             (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May 1999, in which it
has ruled:


title: Case C-535/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Apozyt GmbH

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Apozyt GmbH
   (Case C-535/11)
   2012/C 13/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Novartis Pharma GmbH

      Defendant: Apozyt GmbH

      Question referred

   Does the term ‘developed’ in the introductory sentence of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (1) extend to processes in which portions only of a medicinal product which has been developed and produced on a ready-to-use basis in accordance with the above procedures are drawn off into another container, after being prescribed and ordered at the time concerned by a doctor, if as a result of the process the composition of the medicinal product is not modified, and therefore in particular to the production of pre-filled syringes which have been filled with a medicinal product which is authorised under the regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1.


title: Case C-369/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Ahmed Shajin v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Ahmed Shajin v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
   (Case C-369/17)
   (2017/C 293/22)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ahmed Shajin

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

      Question referred

   Does it follow from the expression ‘that he or she has committed a serious crime’ used in Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, that the penalty provided for a specific crime under the law of the particular Member State may constitute the sole criterion to determine whether the person claiming subsidiary protection may be excluded from it?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.


title: Case T-255/13: Action brought on 7 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/16

         Action brought on 7 May 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-255/13)
   2013/C 178/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Salvatorelli, avvocato dello Stato, and by G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 981 final of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it involves flat rate financial corrections made in connection with Investigations AC/2005/44, XC/2007/0107 and XC/2007/030 (flat rate financial correction relating to cross-compliance for the claim years 2005, 2006 and 2007 in the amount of EUR 48 095 235,86), Investigations FV/2007/315 and FV/2007/355 (flat rate financial correction relating to the processing of citrus fruits for the financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007 in the amount of EUR 17 913 976,32), and Investigations FA/2008/64, FA/2008/103, FA/2009/064 and FA/2009/104 (flat rate financial correction relating to recognition criteria for the financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009 in the amount of EUR 6 354 112,39);

               —

               order the Commission of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision is alleged to be unlawful for several reasons:

               1.

               the Commission made the corrections despite a total or partial failure to transpose directives, thus rendering those corrections vulnerable if ever infringement proceedings were to be initiated;

               2.

               the Commission, without reason, disregarded the Italian authorities’ conduct, failing to take into account (i) the need for a gradual approach to an extremely complex system, (ii) the significance of the reference made by the EU legislation to the options for its adoption by each of the Member States, and (iii) the relative uncertainty as to the interpretation of Community law: as a result, the contested decision infringes the principles of legal certainty, legality, proportionality, good faith and protection of legitimate expectations;

               3.

               the Commission completely disregarded the differences between the monitoring systems used by each of the paying agencies;

               4.

               the Commission applied a high level of correction — 10 % — which is in fact only applicable in the event of inadequate random monitoring; and

               5.

               it infringes the principle that a decision must state the reasons on which it is based.

               6.

               The specific complaints made by the Commission in that decision are also contested, following a detailed investigation of the facts relating to the documentation examined by the Commission.

               7.

               The part of the decision which concerns the flat rate correction relating to the processing of citrus fruits for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 is unlawful and is contested in so far as it attributes responsibility for the cases of fraud discovered within the sector to inadequate monitoring on the part of the Member State. In particular, the Commission has not taken into account the fact that no partial or total failure to act was imputable to the State, given that the fraudulent activity in question was in fact imputable to the public officials who were supposed to confirm, following the monitoring entrusted to them, the legality of the activity carried out and the scope of the contributions; therefore, it was not possible for the investigations to be carried out in any other way, and thus avoid fraud, until the criminal conduct mentioned was discovered.

               8.

               The flat rate correction relating to the ARBEA (Agenzia della Regione Basilicata per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura) (Agricultural Payments Agency — Basilicata Region) recognition criteria for the financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009, which was made on the basis of alleged organisational shortcomings supposedly imputable to Italy, is contested on the grounds that (i) rules have been applied to the situation which were not in force at the time the material events took place and (ii) the Commission has disregarded the fact that Italy adopted the necessary corrective measures in good time.


title: Case C-1/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles, 11e Chambre, by judgment of that Court of 3 December 2002 in the case of Ministère public and the civil party: La Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against 1. Paul Van de Walle, 2. Daniel Laurent, 3. Thierry Mersch and the civil defendant: SA Texaco Belgium

text:
C 44/18                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          22.2.2003
(b)   or, on the contrary, that the competent authority of               Or, must it be considered that the legal definition of waste
      dispatch is required to send the notification as classified        within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions applies
      by the notifier to the competent authority of destination,         only if the polluted earth has been excavated?
      while retaining the power, if it considers that the purpose
      of the shipment has been incorrectly classified, also to
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
      raise a reasoned objection on the basis of that erroneous          (2 ) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
      classification, at the same time or subsequently?
( 1) OJ L 30 of 6.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
                                                                         Première Instance de Bruxelles by order of that Court of
                                                                         24 December 2002 in the case of Banque Bruxelles
                                                                         Lambert S.A. (‘BBL’) against the Belgian State, Minister of
                                                                         Finance, Department of administration of value added
                                                                                tax, registration and public property
                                                                                (Case C-8/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                                             (2003/C 44/33)
de Bruxelles, 11e Chambre, by judgment of that Court of
3 December 2002 in the case of Ministère public and the
civil party: La Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against 1. Paul             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Van de Walle, 2. Daniel Laurent, 3. Thierry Mersch and                   European Communities by order of the Tribunal de Première
            the civil defendant: SA Texaco Belgium                       Instance de Bruxelles (Regional Court, Brussels) of 24 Decem-
                                                                         ber 2002, received at the Court Registry on 10 January 2003,
                                                                         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Banque Bruxelles
                            (Case C-1/03)                                Lambert S.A. (‘BBL’) against the Belgian State, Minister of
                                                                         Finance, Department of administration of value added tax,
                                                                         registration and public property, on the following questions:
                           (2003/C 44/32)
                                                                         Are Sociétés d’investissement à capital variable [open-end
                                                                         investment companies] (SICAVs) established in a Member State
                                                                         which have as their sole object the collective investment in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   transferable securities of capital raised from the public in
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de                  accordance with Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 Decem-
Bruxelles, 11e Chambre, (The Court of Appeal, Brussels,                  ber 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
11th Chamber) of 3 December 2002, received at the Court                  administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collec-
Registry on 3 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the              tive investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1), taxable
case of Ministère public and the civil party: La Région de               persons for value-added-tax purposes within the meaning of
Bruxelles-Capitale against 1. Paul Van de Walle, 2. Daniel               Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
Laurent, 3. Thierry Mersch and the civil defendant: SA Texaco            1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
Belgium on the following questions:                                      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
                                                                         tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), so that the services referred
                                                                         to in Article 9(2)(e) of that directive supplied to them are
                                                                         deemed to be provided at the place where the said SICAVs
Are Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July              have established their seat?
1975 (1) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991 ( 2), which defines waste as meaning ‘any
substance or object which the holder disposes of or is required          If the answer to that question is in the negative, the resolution
to dispose of pursuant to the provisions of national law in              of the case entails determining what types of services provided
force’, and Article 1(b) and (c) of that directive which define          to the SICAVs may benefit from the exemption under
‘producer of waste’ as ‘anyone whose activities produce waste            Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive: Is it necessary in this
(“original producer”) and/or anyone who carries out pre-                 context to distinguish between services which comprise the
processing, mixing or other operations resulting in a change             giving of assistance and management advice, on the one hand,
in the nature or composition of this waste’, and ‘holder’ as ‘the        and management services in the strict sense, on the other, the
producer of the waste or the natural or legal person who is in           latter being said to differ from the former in that they imply a
possession of it’, to be interpreted as being capable of applying        power on the manager’s part to take decisions relating to the
to a petroleum company which produces hydrocarbons and                   administration and disposal of the assets under management?
sells them to a manager operating one of its service stations
under a contract of independent management excluding                     (1 ) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1985, p. 3.
any relationship of subordination to that company, if such               (2 ) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
hydrocarbons percolate into the ground, thus causing pol-
lution of the earth and subterranean waters?


title: Case C-37/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2017 by Rudolf Keil against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-330/15 Rudolf Keil v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/20

         Appeal brought on 24 January 2017 by Rudolf Keil against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-330/15 Rudolf Keil v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-37/17 P)
   (2017/C 277/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Rudolf Keil (represented by: J. Sachs, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 31 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.


title: Case F-100/09: Action brought on 15 December 2009 — Michail v Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/52

         Action brought on 15 December 2009 — Michail v Commission
   (Case F-100/09)
   2010/C 63/91
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meidani, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant's decision rejecting the applicant's application under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by reason of the harassment of which the applicant claims to have been a victim.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision dated 9 March 2009, rejecting the application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order against the Commission to pay compensation for non-material damage amounting to EUR 30 000;

               —

               Costs order against the European Commission.


title: Case C-532/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/22

         Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-532/08)
   (2009/C 32/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek, A.A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC (1) 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, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 309, p. 15.


title: Case C-270/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 31 May 2010 — Lotta Gistö

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 31 May 2010 — Lotta Gistö
   (Case C-270/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/39
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lotta Gistö

      Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

      Question referred

   Is Article 14 of the Protocol (1) to be interpreted in Lotta Gistö’s case as meaning that, in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol, her residence for tax purposes in 2007 is still Finland, or does the Protocol mean in this case that ultimately, however, the provisions of the domestic legislation of the Member State decide the question of general tax liability in a Member State, in this case Finland?

      (1)  Protocol (No 36) on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (1965),

      OJ 2006 C 321 E, p. 318.


title: Case C-510/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Marianne Parigger v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Marianne Parigger v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
      (Case C-510/14)
      (2015/C 073/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Marianne Parigger

         Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
      The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 9 December 2014.


title: Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Amedeo Musso against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-23/98)

text:
11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 113/17
2. the applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                    requested the Commission to reimburse the fines paid by
                                                                   them. By letter of 4 October 1995, the Commission
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.                                            refused on the ground that the decision imposing the fines
(2) OJ L 95, 10.4.1997, p. 19.                                     was still standing with regard to the applicants. The
                                                                   applicants applied to the Court of First Instance for the
                                                                   annulment of the Commission's decision of refusal (1). By
                                                                   judgment of 10 July 1997 the Court of First Instance
                                                                   annulled that decision.
Action brought on 14 November 1997 by AssiDöman
                                                                   The applicants state that the Court of First Instance held
Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp
                                                                   that, pursuant to Article 176 of the Treaty, the
companies against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Commission should have reviewed, in the light of the
                          Communities
                                                                   wood pulp judgment, the lawfulness of the wood pulp
                       (Case T-292/97)                             Decision in so far as it applies to the Swedish addressees
                         (98/C 113/42)                             and, if it concluded that there was no lawful basis for the
                                                                   fines imposed on them, it would be required, by virtue of
                                                                   the rule of law and pursuant to the principle of proper
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   administration, to repay the fines.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  By letter of 12 August 1997, the applicants called on the
Instance of the European Communities on 14 November                Commission to take a position on the obligations arising
1997 by AssiDöman Kraft Products AB and six other                  out of the judgment of 10 July 1997 within two months of
Swedish wood pulp companies, represented by John                   receipt of that letter. No response of any kind was
Pheasant, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and            received from the Commission.
Wales, of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Loesch & Wolter,
11 rue Goethe, Luxembourg.                                         The applicants maintain that the Commission, though
                                                                   called on to act, has failed to comply with the obligations
                                                                   arising out of the judgment of 10 July 1997, contrary to
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                   Article 176 of the Treaty and in defiance of the principle
                                                                   of proper administration and of the rule of law.
Ð declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, that,
    in breach of Article 176 of that Treaty, the
    Commission has failed to take the necessary measures           (1) Case T-227/95 (OJ C 64, 2.3.1996, p. 16).
    to comply with the Court's judgment of 10 July 1997,
Ð order, pursuant to Article 176 of the Treaty and
    without prejudice to the rights of the applicants under
    the second paragraph of Article 215 thereof, the
    Commission to take the necessary measures to comply            Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Amedeo Musso
    with the judgment of 10 July 1997,                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-23/98)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 113/43)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicants, or their predecessors in title, were among
the addressees of Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of
19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding pursuant to              An action against the Commission of the European
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/29.725 Ð Wood pulp) by             Communities was brought before the Court of First
which the Commission imposed fines on 43 of the                    Instance of the European Communities on 26 January
addressees of the Decision. The applicants, who had never          1998 by Amedeo Musso, represented by Vincenzo Cinque
accepted the allegations of infringement, did not bring an         and Luciana Candriella, of the Udine Bar, 34 via
action for annulment of the Decision and paid the fines to         Morpurgo, Udine.
the Commission. On application by other addressees of
the Decision, the Court of Justice, by judgment of
31 March 1993 in Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 and C-125/85 to C-129/
85, A. Ahlström Oy v. Commission, annulled, inter alia,            Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
two of the key findings of infringement with the result                 30 July 1997,
that the Commission was required to repay to the
producers who had been parties to those proceedings the
fines imposed on the basis of those findings of                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
infringement. Pursuant to that judgment, the applicants                 inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
 ---pagebreak--- C 113/18              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with          Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid                 against the Council of the European Union
     was paid,                                                                             (Case T-33/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/45)
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                   represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
relied on Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia v.
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
Commission (1).
                                                                   4, boulevard Royal.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                       97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Netherlands              Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
Antilles against the Commission of the European                        97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
                          Communities
                        (Case T-32/98)                             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                         (98/C 113/44)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   Following a complaint lodged by the Defence Committee
                                                                   of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                   Union, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  investigation in respect of imports into the Community of
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
1998 by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F.          originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and
Bos and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an              the Slovak Republic. At the same time, the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               announced the initiation of an interim review of Council
Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe.                                    Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 in respect of imports of
                                                                   certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
                                                                   originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Croatia. The anti-dumping proceeding so initiated
                                                                   followed the normal course and on its conclusion the
                                                                   Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of
Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2532/97 of                   17 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping
     27 November 1997 introducing specific measures in             duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of
     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas        iron and non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland,
     countries and territories (1),                                Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak
                                                                   Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and
                                                                   terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.               originating in the Republic of Croatia (1).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant, a company incorporated under Romanian
                                                                   law, challenges the abovementioned Regulation, on the
                                                                   grounds that the Community institutions:
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
those in Case T-163/97 (2) and T-179/97 (3).
                                                                   Ð have acted in breach of Article 22 of the basic
                                                                       anti-dumping Regulation (hereinafter the Basic
(1) OJ L 326, 28.11.1997, p. 21.
(2) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997, p. 31.
                                                                       Regulation') and also Article 34 of the Association
(3) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, p. 25.                                        Agreement with Romania, by imposing anti-dumping
                                                                       duties without referring the matter to the Association
                                                                       Council, and the statement of the reasons for the
                                                                       contested Regulation is inadequate in this respect,


title: Case T-357/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Pucci International v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci — Earlier Community figurative and national word and figurative marks Emilio Pucci and EMILIO PUCCI — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Pucci International v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci)
   (Case T-357/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci - Earlier Community figurative and national word and figurative marks Emilio Pucci and EMILIO PUCCI - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 355/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Emilio Pucci International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. López Camba and E. Seijo Veiguela and, subsequently, by J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Joined Cases R 770/ 2008-2 and R 826/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Emilio Pucci International BV and El Corte Inglés, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2009 (Joined Cases R 770/2008-2 and R 826/2008-2) as regards, first, the proof of use of the spectacles in Class 9 and, second, the application of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 to the spectacles in Class 9, to the jewellery, costume jewellery and watches in Class 14 and to the lavatory paper in Class 16;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Emilio Pucci International BV to pay one-third of the costs and OHIM and El Corte Inglés, SA to pay two-thirds of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-82/99: Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Michael Cwik against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 174/12              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.6.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants claim to be affected by some provisions of the            — annul the Commission’s decision of 5 January 1999
United Kingdom VAT Act 1994, which were adopted on the                        rejecting his complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff
basis of an enabling power under Article 4(4) of Council                      Regulations against the Commission’s refusal of authoris-
Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended (the Sixth VAT Directive),                   ation to publish a detailed transcript of the lecture which
which provides inter alia that ‘each Member State may treat as                he had been authorised to give in Cordoba on 30 October
a single taxable person persons established in the territory of               1997 on the subject of ‘The need for economic fine-tuning
the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound                 at the local and regional level in the Monetary Union of
to one another by financial, economic and organisational                      the European Union’;
links’. No Member State may, however, rely on this power
unconditionally because Article 4(4) states clearly that its use         — declare his claim for authorisation to publish the transcript
is ‘subject to the consultations provided for in Article 29’.                 of his lecture admissible and well-founded;
Article 29 of the Sixth VAT Directive establishes the ‘Advisory
Committee on VAT’.
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicants are of the view that if the United Kingdom did
not consult the Committee as required or, if no direct evidence
in the form of a probative contemporaneous report of                     Pleas in law and main arguments
consultation can be adduced, then the abovementioned pro-
visions of United Kingdom law are invalid on the ground of
breach of an essential procedural requirement and cannot be              The applicant states that he personally participated in a
applied as against the applicant.                                        seminar, at which he gave a lecture, having requested and
                                                                         obtained the authorisation of his superiors at the Commission
The applicants did ask the United Kingdom authorities for                on the strength of a résurmé and an outline of the main points
details of the consultations, but the request was declined on            he was going to raise in his presentation. Subsequently, the
the grounds that the relevant details were not in the public             organisers of the seminar asked him to supply a detailed text
domain. The applicants consequently lodged an application                of his lecture for an inclusion in a publication they intended
with the defendant. The defendant did not reply to the                   to issue. The applicant’s application under Article 17(2) of the
application for access within one month of the application               Staff Regulations for leave to publish the text in question was
being made or within one month to the application for review.            refused by the Commission on the grounds that, first, it risked
                                                                         compromising the interests of the institution by reducing its
The applicants submit that, by failing to reply within one               room for manoeuvre, and, secondly, there were significant
month of the application for review, the defendant was deemed            differences between the résumé of the lecture (which had been
to have refused the application by virtue of Article 2(4) of the         the basis of the authorisation to deliver it) and the text in
Access Decision. That refusal is unlawful per se and also                question.
because it is not accompanied by a statement of reasons and
therefore infringes Article 190 EC, which is a mandatory                 The applicant challenges that statement of reasons, arguing
provision. The time-limit of one month for each of the                   that, in denying him the right to publish his article, the
abovementioned applications imposes a necessary discipline,              Commission committed an obvious error of assessment and a
designed to protect the rights of persons such as the applicants         misuse of powers, and infringed the principle of the protection
who seek access to documents against prevarication, by                   of legitimate expectations and duty to have due regard for the
requiring the Commission to do everything necessary —                    welfare of officials.
including the conduct of internal consultations and the
obtaining of all necessary consents — within the time-limit,
and must be regarded as mandatory and binding in all respects.
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Michael Cwik against                  Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Michel Hendrickx
       the Commission of the European Communities                                                against CEDEFOP
                         (Case T-82/99)
                                                                                (Case T-87/99)
                        (1999/C 174/24)
                                                                                (1999/C 174/25)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 April 1999 by Michael Cwik,
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicholas Lhöest,          An action against the European Centre for the Development
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before the
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on


title: Case C-215/06: Action brought on  11 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/20

         Action brought on 11 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-215/06)
   (2006/C 178/32)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that projects which are within the scope of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) either before or after modification by Directive 97/11/EC (2) are, before they are executed are in whole or in part, first considered with regard to the need for an environmental impact as assessment and, secondly, where likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, of their nature, size or location, made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337/EEC, Ireland has failed to comply with the obligations that it has under Articles 2, 4 and 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337/EEC, and

                           —

                           by failing to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that the development consents given for and the execution of wind-farm developments and associated works at Derrybrien, County Galway were preceded by an assessment with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337/EEC, Ireland has failed to comply with the obligations that it has under Articles 2, 4 and 5 to 10 of the said Directive 85/337/EEC;

               2.

               order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that Ireland's implementation of Council directive 85/337/CEE (the Impact Assessment Directive) is and has been deficient for the following reasons:
   Ireland has failed to take measures to ensure that checks are made to ascertain whether proposed works are liable to have significant effects on the environment in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Impact Assessment Directive. Ireland's legislation does not provide that those effects are assessed in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive.
   The system in Ireland which allows an application for retention permission to be made after a development has been executed in whole or in part without consent undermines the preventive objectives of the Impact Assessment Directive.
   The enforcement regime in Ireland does not guarantee the effectiveness of the application of the Impact Assessment Directive. Consequently Ireland has failed to fulfil its general obligation under article 249 of the Treaty to ensure that the directive is applied effectively
   There have been a number of particular deficiencies in relation to the undertaking of environmental impact assessments for a wind farm at Derrybrien, County Galway, which amount to a manifest breach of the directive.

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ L 73, p. 5.