title: Case T-255/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/52

         Action brought on 8 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-255/05)
   (2005/C 217/108)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 722/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B503 468 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Colour figurative mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1


title: Case T-345/09: Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM — Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/35

         Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM — Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA)
   (Case T-345/09)
   2009/C 256/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL (Autol, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda (Labastida, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 28 May 2009 in Case R 1021/2008-1, allowing the application for registration of ‘PUERTA DE LABASTIDA’ (word mark) as a Community trade mark for Classes 29, 33 and 35;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: BODEGAS Y VIÑEDOS PUERTA DE LABASTIDA S.L.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PUERTA DE LABASTIDA’ (Application No 4473278) for goods and services in Classes 29, 33 and 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: UNIÓN DE COSECHEROS DE LABASTIDA, S. COOP. LTDA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA’ (No 617 137) for goods in Class 33; Community word mark ‘CASTILLO LABASTIDA’ (No. 23 382) for goods in Class 33; and Community word mark ‘CASTILLO LABASTIDA’ (No 3 515 566) for services in Classes 35, 39 and 43.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42 and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-457/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 47/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.2.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Member States are required by the binding character of
Error in the legal assessment of the facts entailing a breach of          the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
rules of law, in this case Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff         third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
Regulations of Officials and the implementing provisions.                 to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
                                                                          national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
                                                                          purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
                                                                          the Commission. Those periods expired without the Hellenic
                                                                          Republic having communicated to the Commission the pro-
                                                                          visions transposing the directives at issue into national law.
                                                                          (1) OJ No L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17.
                                                                          (2) OJ No L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 15.
                                                                          (3) OJ No L 351, 23.12.1997, p. 55.
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                 lic
                                                                          Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
                          (Case C-457/99)                                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                                lic
                           (2000/C 47/28)                                                         (Case C-458/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/29)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Kirchberg.                                                                Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                    down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with:                       necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                              98/19/EC (1) of 18 March 1998 amending Council Direc-
                                                                              tive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs, the
    — Council Directive 95/53/EC (1) of 25 October 1995                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
         fixing the principles governing the organisation of                  the Treaty and that directive;
         official inspections in the field of animal nutrition;
                                                                          — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    — Council Directive 95/69/EC (2) of 22 December 1995
         laying down the conditions and arrangements for                  Pleas in law and main arguments
         approving and registering certain establishments and
         intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector               The Member States are required by the binding character of
         and amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC,                   the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
         79/373/EEC and 82/471/EEC; and                                   third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
                                                                          to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
                                                                          national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
    — Commission Directive 97/72/EC (3) of 15 December                    purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
         1997 amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC con-                  the Commission. That period expired on 31 May 1998
         cerning additives in feedingstuffs,                              without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                          Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
                                                                          into national law.
    the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the Treaty and those directives;
                                                                          (1) OJ No L 96, 28.3.1998, p. 39.
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-316/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet (Second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Protection of animals during transport — Transport by road of domestic animals of the porcine species — Minimum height of compartments — Inspection during a journey — Loading density — Right of Member States to adopt detailed standards)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet
   (Case C-316/10) (1)

   (Second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport - Transport by road of domestic animals of the porcine species - Minimum height of compartments - Inspection during a journey - Loading density - Right of Member States to adopt detailed standards)
   2012/C 49/11
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Danske Svineproducenter

      Defendant: Justitsministeriet

      Intervener: Union européenne du commerce de bétail et de la viande

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 249 EC (now the second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU) and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Right of Member States to adopt detailed national rules relating to the minimum height of compartments, inspection height and loading density inside vehicles used to transport pigs

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               it does not preclude the adoption, by a Member State, of standards applicable to the transport by road of pigs which, in order to strengthen legal certainty, define, in compliance with the objective of protecting the welfare of animals and without laying down any excessive criteria in that regard, the requirements provided for by that regulation as regards the minimum internal height of compartments intended for animals, provided that those standards do not result in additional costs or technical difficulties which disadvantage either producers in the Member State which has adopted those standards or producers from other Member States who wish to export their goods to or via that first Member State, that being a matter for the national court to determine. Standards such as those set out in the transitional provisions in Paragraph 36(4) of Order No 1729 of 21 December 2006 on the protection of animals during transport cannot, however, be regarded as proportionate since the same Member State has adopted less restrictive standards, such as those in Paragraph 9(1) of that order, under the system of general law;

               —

               it precludes the adoption, by a Member State, of standards applicable to the transport by road of pigs defining in greater detail the requirements provided for by that regulation in respect of access to animals in order to check regularly their welfare conditions, which relate only to journeys of more than eight hours’ duration; and

               —

               it does not preclude the adoption, by a Member State, of standards according to which, where pigs are being transported by road, the animals must have a minimum surface area which varies according to their weight, that surface area being, for a 100 kg animal, 0.42 m2 where the journey time is less than eight hours and 0.50 m2 for journeys of more than eight hours.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-96/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects
   (Case C-96/15)
   (2015/C 146/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC

      Defendant: Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (1), applied in the light of recitals 9 and 11 in the preamble thereto and the judgments in Zuckerfabrik Jülich I and II, and the general Community law principles of proportionality, freedom to conduct a business and the prohibition of unjust enrichment to be interpreted as meaning that a sugar manufacturer is entitled to reimbursement of production levies paid on the basis of the quantities of quota sugar still held in stock on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 (2)?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, must the amount of levies to be reimbursed to manufacturers be based solely on the tonnage of sugar held in stock on 30 June 2006?

                           (b)

                           If the preceding question is answered in the negative, must the tonnage of sugar to be taken as the basis for reimbursement of the levies be based on variations in Community sugar stock levels between 1 July 2001and 30 June 2006?

               3.

               May the calculation of the levy to be repaid reasonably be arrived at by multiplying the quantity of sugar deemed to be held in stock in response to in Question 2 by the weighted average of the ‘average losses’ established during the 2001/2006 COM, or must it be calculated differently and, if so, how?

               4.

               If the foregoing questions are answered in the affirmative, is Regulation No 164/2007 of 19 February 2007 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3) invalid?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ 2007 L 51, p. 17.


title: Case C-380/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rethymnon Court of First Instance lodged on 8 August 2007 — Georgios Karabousanos and Sophocles Mikhopoulos v Municipality of Geropotamos

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rethymnon Court of First Instance lodged on 8 August 2007 — Georgios Karabousanos and Sophocles Mikhopoulos v Municipality of Geropotamos
   (Case C-380/07)
   (2007/C 269/49)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Rethymnon Court of First Instance
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Georgios Karabousanos and Sophocles Mikhopoulos

      Defendant: Municipality of Geropotamos
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do clause 5 and clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which forms an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ 1999 L 175 p. 43), mean that Community law (by reason of the application of the said Framework Agreement) does not allow a Member State to adopt measures (a) where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement already existed under national law before the directive entered into force and (b) where the measures adopted in order to apply the Framework Agreement reduce the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where there is an equivalent legal measure under national law, within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, which existed before Directive 1999/70/EC entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings, an unacceptable reduction in the general level [of protection] afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement:

                           (a)

                           when the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement was adopted after the time-limit for transposing Directive 1999/70/EC had elapsed, but only fixed-term employment contracts and relationships which were in effect before its entry into force or had expired within a certain period before its entry into force but after the time-limit for transposing the Directive had elapsed fall within its chronological scope, although the equivalent legal measure which already existed does not have a chronologically restricted scope of application and covers all fixed-term employment contracts which had been concluded, were in effect or had expired when Directive 199/70/EC came into force and the time-limit for its transposition had elapsed;

                           (b)

                           when fixed-term employment contracts or relationships only fall within the scope of application of the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement if they can be regarded as successive within the meaning of that measure, satisfying the cumulative requirements:

                                       (1)

                                       that there is a maximum period of three months between them;

                                       (2)

                                       that they extend for a total of at least 24 months before the measure in question enters into force, irrespective of the number of contract renewals or that, on the basis of those renewals, there has been a minimum total period of work of 18 months over an overall period of 24 months from the original contract, provided that there are at least three renewals since the original contract, whereas the existing equivalent legal measure does not lay down such conditions but covers all the fixed-term (successive) employment contracts, irrespective of a minimum total period of work and a minimum number of contract renewals;

                           (c)

                           when the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement provides as a legal consequence for the protection of fixed-term workers and the prevention of abuse, within the meaning of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, for the qualification thereafter (ex nunc) of fixed-term employment contracts as contracts of indefinite duration, whereas the pre-existing legal measure provides for the qualification of fixed-term contracts as contracts of indefinite duration from the time they were originally concluded (ex tunc)?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which forms an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, already existed in the national legal order before that directive entered into force, as in the case of Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 7 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings an unacceptable reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement, when that provides, as the sole means of protection of fixed-term workers from abuse, for an obligation on the part of the employer to pay wages and severance pay where workers have wrongfully been employed under successive fixed-term employment contracts, bearing in mind

                           (a)

                           that the obligation to pay wages and severance pay is provided for under national law for all employment relationships and is not intended specifically to prevent abuse within the meaning of the Framework Agreement, and

                           (b)

                           that the legal consequence of the application of the earlier equivalent legal measure is that successive fixed-term contracts of employment are recognised as a contract of indefinite duration?

               4.

               If all the above questions are answered in the affirmative, should the national court, in interpreting national law in accordance with Directive 1999/70/EC, disapply the provisions of the legal measure which are not compatible with it, but which were adopted by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement and result in a reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law, such as Articles 7 and 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 and apply instead an equivalent legal measure which existed before the directive entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920?

               5.

               If the national court finds that — in principle — a provision (in this case Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920) that constitutes an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which is an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, is applicable to a dispute over fixed-term work and, on the basis of that provision, the finding that successive contracts of employment were concluded as a fixed-term contract for no objective reason relating to the nature, type or features of the work offered means that the contracts must be recognised as a contract of employment of indefinite duration, then

                           (a)

                           is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that the fact that a legal provision governing employment under a fixed-term contract of employment in order to meet seasonal, periodic, temporary, exceptional needs was used as the legal basis for concluding a fixed-term contract constitutes an objective reason in all cases for concluding such contracts, even though the requirements covered were in fact fixed and permanent, and

                           (b)

                           is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that a provision prohibiting the conversion of fixed-term contracts of employment in the public sector to contracts of indefinite duration must be construed as an absolute prohibition in any circumstance to convert a fixed-term employment contract or relationship in the public sector to an employment contract or relationship of indefinite duration, even if it was wrongfully concluded as a fixed-term contract, that is to say, when the requirements met were in fact fixed and permanent, and that the national court has no discretion in such cases to make a finding as to the true character of the legal employment relationship at issue and correctly qualify it as a contract of indefinite duration? Alternatively should the prohibition in question be restricted solely to fixed-term contracts of employment which were in fact concluded in order to meet temporary, unforeseeable, urgent, exceptional or similar types of special requirements and not to cases in which they were in fact concluded in order to meet fixed and permanent requirements?


title: Case T-197/02: Action brought on 2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis against the European Parliament

text:
28.9.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 233/25
—    Vice-President Kinnock is asked to enter into negotiations          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     with the trade unions/staff organisations and to propose
     for adoption by the Commission, before the end of March             —     allow the application;
     2002, a new framework agreement and to include in the
     series of amendments on which the trade unions and                  —     annul the contested measure;
     staff organisations are to be consulted an amendment
     providing for the opportunity to adopt electoral rules by
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay EUR 12 500 in respect of the
     way of a vote by the staff of the institution.
                                                                               material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant;
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          —     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs irrespec-
                                                                               tive of the outcome of the case.
—    clear intent to circumvent the judgment of the Court of
     First Instance of 22 November 2001 delivered in Case
     T-349/00 Lebedef v Commission;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—    infringement of the 1974 framework agreement and of
     the principle ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’;                     (1) Failure on the part of the defendant to comply with the
                                                                               judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-182/99
—    absence of any objective examination of the representativ-                by which the decision not to promote the applicant was
     ity of the trade unions/staff organisations and manifest                  annulled.
     error in the comparative assessment of that rep-
     resentativity;                                                      (2) Misuse of procedure.
—    infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;                (3) Misuse of powers.
—    infringement of the rights of the defence;                          (4) Unreasonable exercise by the defendant of its discretion
                                                                               in relation to promotions.
—    breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-
     tations;                                                            (5) Incorrect exercise of that discretion.
—    failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons;             (6) Sham re-examination of the applicant’s candidature for
                                                                               promotion.
—    failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the
     welfare and interests of officials;                                 (7) Superiority of the mark of the applicant, who was not
                                                                               promoted, vis-à-vis the marks of those promoted.
—    infringement of Article 24a of the Statute and of the
     principle of the freedom of trade union activity.                   (8) Liability for a wrongful act on the part of the defendant,
                                                                               causing the applicant material and non-material harm.
Action brought on 2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis
               against the European Parliament                           Action brought on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’ against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-197/02)
                                                                                (Case T-198/02)
                        (2002/C 233/46)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/47)
                   (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis, resident in Brussels,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with an address for service           European Communities on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’, represented
in Luxembourg.                                                           by Nicola Lhoëst, lawyer.


title: Case F-61/09: Action brought on 25 June 2009 — Strack v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/36

         Action brought on 25 June 2009 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-61/09)
   2009/C 193/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tetterborn, Lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision to refuse the applicant access to various files

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied and express decisions by the defendant, in particular those regarding the access granted to various files on 12 September 2008, 3 October 2008 and 14 November 2008, the decision of Mr Jansen of 19 September 2008 and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 25 March 2009 on the rejection of complaint No R/554/08 made by the applicant, in so far as they refuse or restrict full access by the applicant to all available data and documents concerning him held by the defendant, and to complete personal, medical and other files maintained in accordance with correct procedures and uniform standards and in a language and form which are readily understandable and accessible for him — which therefore comply with Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations and have been completed as necessary to that end — and which thereby reject, at least in part, the applicant’s requests of, inter alia, 10 July 2008, 19 September 2008 and 28 November 2008;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant an appropriate sum in damages on account of the unlawful conduct described in this action, at a level to be fixed at the discretion of the court but which should amount to at least EUR 2 500;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay each month to the applicant a sum in damages from the time of service of this action until complete access is actually provided to all the data and documents which are the subject of this action and to his properly maintained personal and medical file, the sum to be paid each month to be fixed at the discretion of the court but which should amount to at least EUR 200;

               —

               Order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the necessary costs and expenses incurred when inspecting the files on further occasions as required, on the same basis as the defendant’s right to mission expenses, in the alternative to reimburse on the same basis those costs already incurred by the applicant as a result of his travel to Luxembourg on 12 September 2008 and 14 November 2008;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-347/99: Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
— there exists a parallel file with regard to the present case;               Commission. Moreover, it is not manifestly evident that
                                                                              the application of that measure gives rise to a distortion of
— her rights under the Staff Regulations (Article 4 of                        competition which would affect intra-Community trade.
    Annex VII to the Staff Regulations) were infringed so far
    as concerns the substance of her case.                               — the Commission misinterpreted the concept of ‘nature or
                                                                              scheme of the system’, which the defendant institution
                                                                              itself (uses) in its Communication on tax aid. In that
                                                                              connection, the applicant considers the provincial legis-
                                                                              lation at issue is supported by a long historical tradition,
                                                                              both at provincial and national level, and lays down
                                                                              objective criteria of general application, which do not
                                                                              discriminate between classes of economic operators to the
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                           detriment of some of them and which are necessary in
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                      order to achieve the objective pursued, as well as to ensure
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                         the proper and efficient operation of the system of which
                           Communities                                        it forms part.
                                                                         — it is impossible for the Spanish authorities to have infringed
                         (Case T-346/99)
                                                                              the obligation to notify laid down in Article 88(3) of the
                                                                              EC Treaty, since they have always been certain that the
                          (2000/C 79/72)                                      reduction of the basis of assessment in question in no way
                                                                              constitutes State aid. The applicant would go so far as to
                                                                              describe as absurd the requirement that measures be
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                            notified where there are not even any doubts as to their
                                                                              general nature.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               — the Commission misused its powers in so far as it takes
European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                     the view that the Commission used its power to engage
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                      procedures under Articles 87 and 88 in order to pursue
Foral de Alava, Alava (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus                    objectives relating to tax harmonisation.
Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and
Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels        Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the obligation to
at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Avenue de                    state reasons for measures.
Cortenbergh.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 6 of
    Provincial Law of Alava No 24/1996, as State aid within              Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
    the meaning of Article 87 EC;                                        Histórico de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia —
                                                                         Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against the Commission of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                    the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-347/99)
The applicant contests the characterisation as State aid of the                                    (2000/C 79/73)
reduction of the basis of assessment for corporation tax,
provided for in Article 26 of Provincial Law of Alava
No 24/1996 for newly created undertakings which invest a                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
minimum of PTA 80 million, create 10 new jobs and have a
minimum paid-up capital of PTA 20 million.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that:                  European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
                                                                         Histórico de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia — Diputa-
— the Commission misinterpreted Article 87 of the EC                     ción Foral de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoa (Spain) represented by
    Treaty, inasmuch as it regarded the reduction of the basis           Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the
    for assessment for newly created undertakings as State aid.          Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for
    The tax measure in question is of general application                service in Brussels at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados,
    and lacks the selective nature attributed to it by the               60 Avenue de Cortenbergh.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far              The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable        put forward in Case T-346/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 26            Commission.
    of Provincial Law of Gipuzkoa No 7/1996, as State aid
    within the meaning of Article 87 EC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 8 December 1999 by Miroslav Misko-
                                                                                vic against the Council of the European Union
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
put forward in Case T-346/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission.                                                                                (Case T-349/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/75)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 8 December 1999 by Miroslav Miskovic,
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
                                                                         represented by Nicolas Rollason and Tim Eicke with an address
Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputa-
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss
ción Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the
                                                                         & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill.
                     European Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-348/99)
                                                                         — declare void the Council Decision 1999/612/CFSP;
                          (2000/C 79/74)
                                                                         — order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The contested Council decision, which implements Common
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive
European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, includes,
Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputación              inter alia, the applicant on a list of persons being subject to an
Foral de Bizkaia, Bizkaia (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus           obligation of non-admission in the territories of the Member
Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and              States.
Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels
at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Avenue de
                                                                         The applicant challenges the choice of legal base by the
Cortenbergh.
                                                                         Council. Since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty
                                                                         measures concerning immigration and asylum policy fell
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              within the exclusive competence under Title IV EC. By basing
                                                                         the contested decision on Title V EU the Council had therefore
                                                                         based its actions on the wrong legal base. Furthermore, by
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far              imposing the obligation of non-admission in the legislative
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable        form of a decision, the Council chose an legal instrument
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 26            which in the present context was neither provided for in
    of Provincial Law of Bizkaia No 3/1996, as State aid within          Title V EU nor in Title IV EC.
    the meaning of Article 87 EC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-207/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
   (Case C-207/17)
   (2017/C 277/32)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rotho Blaas Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, (2) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 519/2015 of 26 March 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (3) invalid/unlawful/incompatible with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 and the decision of the WTO DSB of 28 July 2011?

               2.

               If Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing an anti-dumping duty and related implementing regulations Nos 924/2012 and 519/2015 are declared invalid/unlawful/incompatible, does the repeal of the anti-dumping duties imposed on the basis of the contested measures produce legal effects from the time Implementing Regulation (EU) No 278/2016 (4) enters into force, or from the date on which the contested measure, that is to say, Basic Regulation (EC) No 91/2009, entered into force?

      (1)  Council Regulation of 26 January 2009 (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation of 4 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 275, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation of 26 March 2015 (OJ 2015 L 82, p. 78).

      (4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2016 L 52, p. 24).


title: Case T-175/05: Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/32

         Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-175/05)
   (2005/C 171/52)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, established in Arnhem (Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, established in Arnhem (Netherlands), Akzo Nobel AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB, established in Skoghall (Sweden), and Eka Chemicals AB, established in Bohus (Sweden), represented by C. R. A. Swaak and A. Kayhko, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               review, under Article 230 EC, the legality of the Decision C(2004)4876 final of the Commission;

               —

               annul, under Article 231 EC, the contested decision;

               —

               or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine;

               —

               in both alternatives, order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants contest the Commission's Decision of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA), finding that the applicants were involved in a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the Monochloroacetic acid sector in the EEA and imposing a fine on the applicants.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit a manifest error of appreciation and a violation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in that the Commission wrongly attributed the responsibility for the infringement also to Akzo Nobel NV, the top holding company of the Akzo Nobel group, as well to Akzo Nobel AB. According to the applicants, Akzo Nobel NV did not have a decisive influence over the commercial policy of its subsidiaries.
   The applicants furthermore submit that the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants exceeded, for the Swedish companies in the MCAA business, the 10 % turnover limit set by Regulation 1/2003.
   The applicants also contend a violation of the obligation to state reasons under Article 253.
   In the alternative, the applicants submit that the Commission made various errors in relation to the calculation of the fine. According to the applicants, the Commission erred in classification of the companies when assessing the gravity of the infringement for the purposes of determining the basic amount of the fine, violated the principle of proportionality in applying an erroneous multiplier factor and the principle of equal treatment in misapplying the 1996 Leniency Notice (2).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p.1).

      (2)  Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 207, 18/07/1996, p. 4).


title: Case C-400/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 8a Vara Cível da Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção, by order of that court of 31 October 2000 in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo, SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido; intervener: Club Med Viagens Lda

text:
23.12.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 372/7
3.   In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative,          2.     May the expression ‘pre-arranged’ which appears in the
     is Article 20(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be interpreted,                directive be interpreted as referring to the moment when
     in the same circumstances, as meaning that a party that                   the contract is entered into between the agency and the
     has guaranteed payment of excise duty and has not been                    customer?
     promptly put in a position to ascertain that there has
     been no discharge from the suspension arrangement is
     entitled to furnish evidence of the correctness of the             (1) Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,
     operation or of the place where the irregularity in fact                package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).
     occurred or where the offence was in fact committed
     even after the expiry of the four-month period following
     the date of dispatch of the products?
(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
                                                                        Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom), by order of that
                                                                        court of 10 October 2000, in the case of Mrs F. Harding
                                                                                against Skandia Asset Management Ltd
                                                                                (Case C-402/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/14)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Employment
                                                                        Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom) of 10 October 2000,
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2000,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs F. Harding against
                                                                        Skandia Asset Management Ltd, on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 8a Vara Cı́vel
da Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção, by order of that court of
31 October 2000 in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e                     Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty directly applicable so that it
Turismo, SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves                      can be relied upon by an applicant in national proceedings to
         Garrido; intervener: Club Med Viagens Lda                      disapply such territorial limitation as is contained in sec-
                                                                        tion 1(6) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 to enable her to compare
                                                                        her pay with that of men employed by an employer associated
                                                                        with her employer at an establishment in another member
                        (Case C-400/00)                                 State who are performing equal work or work of equal value?
                        (2000/C 372/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
European Communities by order of the 8a Vara Cı́vel da                  of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by
Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção (8th Civil District of the Oporto          order of that court of 14 July 2000 in the case of
Local Court, Third Chamber), of 31 October 2000, which was              Coopsette Scrl, on the one hand, and ANAS and Impresa
received at the Court Registry on 3 November 2000, for a                            Mambrini Costruzioni srl, on the other
preliminary ruling in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo,
SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido; intervener:                                    (Case C-405/00)
Club Med Viagens Lda on the following questions:
                                                                                (2000/C 372/15)
1.   Does a package organised by the agency, at the request
     and on the initiative of the consumer or a strictly defined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     group of consumers in accordance with their wishes,                European Communities by order of 14 July 2000 of the Fourth
     including transport and accommodation through a tour-              Chamber of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), sitting in
     ism undertaking, at an inclusive price, for a period of            its judicial capacity, received at the Court Registry on 6 Novem-
     more than twenty-four hours or including overnight                 ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Coopsette
     accommodation, fall within the scope of the concept of             Scrl, on the one hand, and ANAS and Impresa Mambrini
     ‘package travel’ as defined in Article 2(1) (1)?                   Costruzioni srl, on the other, on the following questions:


title: Case T-23/11: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — BA&SH (ba&sh)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/44

         Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — BA&SH (ba&sh)
   (Case T-23/11) (1)

   2011/C 347/82
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 January 1998 in Case C-15/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Kalliope Schöning-Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Freedom of movement for persons - Collective agreement applicable to public sector employees - Promotion on grounds of seniority - Professional experience acquired in another Member State)

text:
20.2.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 55/13
interpretation of Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive          freedom of movement for workers within the Community
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) Ð the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð               Court, composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Third
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                   and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, H.
assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6. 1977, p. 1) Ð the Court                  Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
(Second Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                         Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as president of the           P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
Second Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and G.                    (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L.
Hirsch, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-                    Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 January 1998, in               judgment on 15 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
which it has ruled:
                                                                     1. Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of
Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                       15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common                         workers within the Community preclude a clause in a
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                    collective agreement applicable to the public service of
must be construed as allowing a taxable person acting as                  a Member State which provides for promotion on
such to deduct the VAT payable by him on goods or                         grounds of seniority for employees of that service after
services supplied to him for the purpose of investment                    eight years' employment in a salary group determined
work intended to be used in connection with taxable                       by that agreement without taking any account of
transactions. The right to deduct remains acquired where,                 previous periods of comparable employment
by reason of circumstances beyond his control, the taxable                completed in the public service of another Member
person has never made use of those goods or services for                  State.
the purpose of carrying out taxable transactions. A supply
of investment goods during the adjustment period, where
such occurs, may give rise to an adjustment of the                   2. A clause in a collective agreement entailing
deduction under the conditions set out in Article 20(3) of                discrimination contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty and
Directive 77/388/EEC.                                                     to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 is
                                                                          null and void by virtue of Article 7(4) of that
                                                                          Regulation. Without requiring or waiting for that
(1) OJ C 101, 22.4.1995.
                                                                          clause to be abolished by collective negotiation or by
                                                                          some other procedure, the national court must
                                                                          therefore apply the same rules to the members of the
                                                                          group disadvantaged by that discrimination as those
                                                                          applicable to the other workers.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                     of 15 January 1998
in Case C-15/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Kalliope Schöning-
   Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (1)
(Freedom of movement for persons Ð Collective                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
agreement applicable to public sector employees Ð
Promotion on grounds of seniority Ð Professional                                          of 15 January 1998
       experience acquired in another Member State)                  in Case C-44/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                         (98/C 55/24)                                the Bundesvergabeamt): Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria
                                                                        AG and Others v. Strohal Rotationsdruck GesmbH (1)
               (Language of the case: German)                        (Public procurement Ð Procedure for the award of public
                                                                     works contracts Ð State printing office Ð Subsidiary
                                                                                pursuing commercial activities)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                (98/C 55/25)
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-15/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court)
Hamburg, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
proceedings pending before that court between Kalliope                         published in the European Court Reports)
Schöning-Kougebetopoulou and Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg Ð on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC
Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation (EEC)                  In Case C-44/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on                      of the EC Treaty from the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 March 1997 in Joined Cases T-40/96 and T-55/96: Armel de Kerros and Véronique Kohn-Bergé v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Recruitment - Admission to internal competitions - Notice of competition - Conditions for taking part - Condition relating to length of service)

text:
No C 131 / 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26 . 4 . 97
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 March 1997
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                      in Joined Cases T-l 78/95 and T-l 79/95 : Santo Picciolo
                        of 6 March 1997
                                                                      and Giuseppe Caló v. Committee of the Regions of the
in Joined Cases T-40/96 and T-55/96: Armel de Kerros                                          European Union (')
and Veronique Kohn-Bergé v. Commission of the                         (Officials — New post with the Committee of the Regions
                   European Communities ( ] )                         — Vacancy Notice — Rejection of candidatures —
                                                                      Application for annulment — Delay in communicating the
(Officials — Recruitment — Admission to internal                      rejection decisions — Failure to state reasons — Equality
competitions — Notice of competition — Conditions for                         of treatment — Manifest error of assessment)
     taking part — Condition relating to length of service)
                                                                                { 97/C 131 /35 )
                          ( 97/C 131 /34
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)                       In Joined Cases T-178/95 and T-179/95 : Santo Picciolo, an
                                                                      official of the European Parliament, residing at Itzig
                                                                      ( Luxembourg) and Giuseppe Caló, residing in
                                                                      Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry De
In Joined Cases T-40/96 and T-55/96 Armel de Kerros,                  maseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
temporary agent of the Commission of the European                     an address for. service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Communities, residing at Grez-Doiceau ( Belgium ), and                Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, against
Veronique Kohn-Bergé, temporary agent of the                          Committee of the Regions of the European Union ( Agent:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                   Dominique Lagasse ) — application for, first, the
Florange ( France ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry          annulment of the decisions of the Committee of the
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Regions of 5 December 1994 rejecting the applicants'
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                    candidatures for the post of Director at the Directorate of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, v. the                    Administration and Registry of the Committee of the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Case                  Regions following the publication of vacancy notice CdR/
T-40/96 : Julian Currall; Case T-55/96 : Ana Maria Alves              1 /94 and, secondly, annulment of the decision the same
Vieira ) — application, in Case T-40/96, for annulment of             day appointing Mr M. to that post — the Court of First
the decision of the selection board in internal competition           Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. García-
COM/T/B/96 and, in Case T-55/96, for annulment of the                 Valdecasas, President of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M.
decision of the selection board in internal competition               Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator for the
COM/T/C/96, both refusing to admit the applicants to the              Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March 1997, in
tests in the abovementioned competitions on the ground                which it :
that they did not fulfil the condition that they should have
completed three years uninterrupted service with the                   1 . dismisses the applications;
European Communities in the capacity of agent, as
referred to in the rules applicable to other servants of the          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Communities — the Court of First Instance
 ( First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio, President, and V.            (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; M. A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 6 March 1997, in which it:
 1 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       competition COM/T/B/96 refusing to admit Armel de                                       of 18 March 1997
       Kerros to the tests in that competition;                        in Case T-35/96 : Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                       (Officials — Vacancy notice — Annulment of the
 2 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal           procedure in progress — Notice of competition — Post
       competition COM/T/C/96 refusing to admit Veronique              reserved for nationals of new Member States — Action for
       Kohn-Bergé to the tests in that competition;                    annulment — Admissibility — Articles 4 and 29 of the
                                                                       Staff Regulations — Principle of the protection of
                                                                       legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty —
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                     Misuse of powers — Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /36 )
 O OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 , and OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-35/96 : Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 1998 in Case C-306/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court): Connemara Machine Turf Co. Ltd v. Coillte Teoranta (Public supply contracts - Definition of contracting authority)

text:
20.2.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/7
G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R.                          Metalarbejderforbund, acting on behalf of John Lauge and
Schintgen        (Rapporteur),      Judges;     N.      Fennelly,      Others, and Lùnmodtagernes Garantifond Ð on the
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                 interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1)
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on, in which it                and Article 4(4) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of
held:                                                                  17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                       Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ
                                                                       L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29), as amended by Directive
Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of Council Regulation (EEC)                       92/56/EEC, (OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 3) Ð the Court
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                 Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth
persons and to members of their families moving within                 Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm
the Community, in the version amended and updated by                   (Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas,
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, and Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of               Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in the version resulting                  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December 1998,
from Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, as amended by                        in which it has ruled:
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92, and Regulation (EC)
No 3096/95, must be interpreted as requiring the
competent institution, where the person concerned fulfils              The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Article 4(4) of
the conditions laid down by one legislation for payment of             Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on
an old-age pension, albeit a limited one, without recourse             the approximation of the laws of the Member States
being necessary to periods of insurance or residence                   relating to collective redundancies, as amended by
completed under another legislation whose conditions are               Directive 92/56/EEC, must be interpreted to the effect
not fulfilled, nevertheless to take into account, in                   that the derogations provided for therein do not apply to
accordance with Article 46 of the same regulation, periods             collective redundancies occurring on the same day as that
completed under the latter legislation where, as a result,             on which the employer files a winding-up petition and
an old-age benefit of a higher amount may be awarded up                terminates the undertaking's activities, and the competent
until such time as the conditions laid down under the                  court subsequently, and without any deferment other than
latter legislation are also fulfilled.                                 that resulting from the date which it sets for the hearing,
                                                                       issues a winding-up order pursuant to the winding-up
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                               petition, that order taking effect for a number of purposes
                                                                       from the date on which the petition was filed.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 17 December 1998
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-250/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Civilret, Hillerùd): Dansk Metalarbejderforbund,                                          (Fifth Chamber)
acting on behalf of John Lauge and Others v.                                               of 17 December 1998
                Lùnmodtagernes Garantifond (1)
                                                                       in Case C-306/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from
(Directive 75/129/EEC Ð Collective redundancies Ð                      the High Court): Connemara Machine Turf Co. Ltd v.
Termination of the establishment's operations as the result                                 Coillte Teoranta (1)
                     of a judicial decision)
                                                                       (Public supply contracts Ð Definition of contracting
                         (1999/C 48/13)
                                                                                authority)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/14)
                 (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-306/97: Reference to the Court under
                                                                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the High Court (Ireland)
In Case C-250/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
of the EC Treaty from the Civilret (Civil Court),                      that court between Connemara Machine Turf Co. Ltd and
Hillerùd (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in the                    Coillte Teoranta Ð on the interpretation of Article 1 of
proceedings pending before that court between Dansk                    Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/8               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.1999
coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                 which she had acquired and also for the inappropriate
contracts (OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1), as amended by                    development of her career and the delay in her career
Directive 88/295/EEC, (OJ L 127, 20.5.1988, p. 1), and of              advancement;
Article 1 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
coordinating procedures for the award of public supply             Ð declare unlawful Article 45(2), (3) and (4) of the Staff
contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth                Regulations having regard to the principles of equal
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the              treatment and entitlement to freedom;
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs of both
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                       actions at first instance and of the present proceedings.
given a judgment on 17 December 1998, in which it held:
                                                                   In the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice
A body such as Coillte Teoranta is a contracting authority         considers that the case is not ready for judgment, the
within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Directive            appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures
for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by
                                                                   Ð set aside in part the judgment of the Court of First
Council Directive 88/295/EEC.
                                                                       Instance of 15 September 1998 in Case T-23/96;
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
                                                                   Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for it
                                                                       to give judgment, on the basis of the principles to be
                                                                       specified by the Court of Justice;
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of these
                                                                       proceedings.
Appeal brought on 23 October 1998 by Elsa De Persio,
an employee of the Commission of the European
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities, against the judgment delivered on
15 September 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case              1. Infringement of the obligation to respond to all
T-23/96 Elsa De Persio v. Commission of the European                   requests made by the appellant;
 Communities, intervener: Council of the European Union
                     (Case C-418/98 P)                             2. Incorrect appraisal of the plea alleging lack of equal
                                                                       treatment and encroachment upon the freedom of
                       (1999/C 48/15)                                  officials covered by the derogation relating to officials
                                                                       in Grades B, C and D;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September
1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First                   3. Errors in law, infringement of the rules of procedure
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-23/96                   concerning the burden of proof borne by the
Elsa De Persio v. Commission of the European                           defendant and manifest error of assessment regarding
Communities, intervener: Council of the European Union,                the provisions relating to the appointing authority;
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 23 October 1998 by Elsa De Persio, an               4. Error in law regarding the applicable procedure and
employee of the Commission of the European                             powers concerning changes to the staff organisation of
Communities, represented by Franco Giampietro, of the                  the Publications Office and the Commission;
Rome Bar, with an address for service at 114 Via
Sacchetti, Rome.                                                   5. Errores in iudicando and infringement of the
                                                                       requirements       relating   to    burden    of   proof
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                 (paragraphs 123 to 149 of the contested judgment).
Ð declare void or non-existent, or annul, the decison
    transferring the appellant, adopted by the Director
    General for Personnel of the Commission and the
    preparatory measures on which it is based;
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands
                                                                   Raad van State by order of that court of 19 November
Ð declare unlawful the conduct of the administration               1998 in the case of W. N. against Staatssecretaris van
    from 13 January 1995 to 10 June 1996;                                                      FinancieÈn
                                                                                (Case C-420/98)
Ð consequently, order the Commission to pay                                                 (1999/C 48/16)
    compensation, on an equitable basis, for the
    non-material damage suffered by the appellant and the
    adverse effect on her peace of mind and physical               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    health, and for loss of the specific professional status       European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad


title: Removal from the register of C-97/97

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.


title: Case C-409/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen v Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH (Common commercial policy — Preferential regime for the importation of products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States — Irregularities detected during an investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the exporting ACP State — Post-clearance recovery of the import duties)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen v Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-409/10) (1)

   (Common commercial policy - Preferential regime for the importation of products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States - Irregularities detected during an investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the exporting ACP State - Post-clearance recovery of the import duties)
   2012/C 39/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

      Respondent on a point of law: Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 32 of Protocol 1 to Annex V to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation (OJ 2000 L 317, p. 3), and Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Exportation of textiles made in China from Jamaica to the European Union — Subsequent verification of proofs of origin undertaken by OLAF and not by the customs authorities of the exporting country as laid down in Protocol 1 — Protection of the possible legitimate expectations of the importer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 32 of Protocol 1 to Annex V to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 and approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2003/159/EC of 19 December 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that the results of a subsequent verification as to the accuracy of the origin of goods as indicated on the EUR. 1 certificates issued by an ACP State and which consisted, for the most part, of an investigation conducted by the Commission, and more precisely by the European Anti-Fraud Office, in that State, and at its invitation, are binding on the authorities of the Member State into which the goods were imported, provided that — and this is a matter for the national court to establish — those authorities received a document unequivocally acknowledging that that ACP State endorsed those results.

               2.

               Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where the EUR. 1 certificates issued for the importation of goods into the European Union are cancelled on the ground that the issue of those certificates was marred by irregularities and that the preferential origin indicated on those certificates could not be confirmed during a subsequent verification, the importer cannot object to post-clearance recovery of the import duties by claiming that the possibility cannot be ruled out that, in reality, some of those goods have that preferential origin.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-515/06 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2006 by European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-168/01: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/18

         Appeal brought on 19 December 2006 by European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-168/01: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-515/06 P)
   (2007/C 56/31)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (represented by: M. Hartmann-Rüppel and W. Rehmann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, Spain Pharma, SA, Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar), GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, anciennement Glaxo Wellcome plc
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006, case no. T-168/01, to the extent the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission decision 2001/70/E (1) of 8 May 2001.

               —

               to award the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Appellant claims the following infringements of Community law by the appealed judgment:

               (a)

               Misapplication of Art. 81(3) EC-the Court of First Instance disregarded the role and function of Art. 81(3) when alleging the assessment undertaken by the Commission was insufficient.

               (b)

               Misapplication of Article 81(3) EC by misjudging the burden of rendering evidence and proof

               (c)

               Misapplication of Article 81(3) EC in consequence of misinterpretation or non-consideration of evidence on file, which proves that the applicant (GSK) did not plead on the requirements of Article 81(3) EC sufficiently and by offering sustainable evidence.

      (1)  OJ L 302, p. 1.