title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2001 in Case C-159/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Admissibility)

text:
14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/19
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Second Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 17 May 2001
                                                                                of 17 May 2001
in Case C-119/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal d’instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris):                   in Case C-159/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et                                             ties v Italian Republic (1)
                          Droits Indirects (1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Combined nomenclature —                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Classification of a multi-function machine combining the                    Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
functions of printer, photocopier, facsimile machine and                                                 Admissibility)
computer scanner — Principal function — Validity of
                    Regulation (EC) No 2184/97)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/34)
                            (2001/C 200/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-159/99: Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-119/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Agent: P. Stancanelli) v Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza,
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        assisted by P.G. Ferri and M. Fiorilli) — application for a
d’instance (District Court) du VIIe arrondissement de Paris                 declaration that:
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Hewlett Packard BV and Directeur                  —      by laying down rules permitting the capture and keeping
Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects — on the interpret-                        of three species (Passer italiae, Passer montanus and
ation of point 3 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC)                        Sturnus vulgaris), contrary to Articles 5 and 7 of Council
No 2184/97 of 3 November 1997 concerning the classification                        Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJ 1997                             vation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and Annex II
L 299, p. 6) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:                            thereto, and by providing that those rules are to apply by
V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                             way of a general and permanent derogation, which is
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                     contrary to Article 9 of that Directive and engenders an
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                         unacceptable degree of legal uncertainty; and
17 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            —      by laying down rules concerning the conditions and
                                                                                detailed rules for the application of the derogation from
Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing that                  the prohibitions laid down by Directive 79/409 which do
would affect the validity of point 3 of the Annex to Commission                    not fully comply with the requirements under Article 9
Regulation (EC) No 2184/97 of 3 November 1997 concerning the                       thereof, in particular as regards the reasons for dero-
classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature.                      gation, listed in Article 9(1)(a) and (b),
                                                                            the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
( 1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                  Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
                                                                            is, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
                                                                            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 May 2001, in
                                                                            which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/20                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            14.7.2001
1.    Declares that, by laying down rules permitting the capture and       Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
      keeping of the species Passer italiae, Passer montanus and           and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      Sturnus vulgaris, contrary to the combined provisions of             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      Articles 5 and 7 of’Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April          on 17 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
      1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Annex II thereto,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;
                                                                           1.   Where a taxable person allocates for purposes other than those
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                               of the business goods (in this case a motor vehicle) on the
                                                                                acquisition of which value added tax was not deductible and
3.    Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                         which, after being acquired, had value-added-tax-deductible
                                                                                work done on them, the value added tax payable under
                                                                                Article 5(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
                                                                                1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                       relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
                                                                                tax: uniform basis of assessment applies solely to the ‘component
                                                                                parts’ of the goods in respect of which there was entitlement to
                                                                                deduct, namely the components which definitively lost their
                                                                                physical and economic distinctiveness when they were incorpor-
                                                                                ated in the vehicle, after its purchase, following transactions
                                                                                involving supplies of goods which led to a lasting increase in
                                                                                the value of the vehicle which has not been entirely consumed at
                                                                                the time of the allocation.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2.   In the case of an allocation which is taxable under Article 5(6)
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                      of the Sixth Directive 77/388, in particular the allocation of
                                                                                goods (in this case a motor vehicle)
                           of 17 May 2001
                                                                                —     which were acquired without any entitlement to deduct,
in Joined Cases C-322/99 and C-323/99 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt                         —     on which work giving entitlement to deduct has been
Burgdorf v Hans-Georg Fischer (C-322/99) and Finanzamt                                carried out, resulting in the incorporation of ‘component
Düsseldorf-Mettmann v KIaus Brandenstein (C-323/99) (1)                               parts’ in the goods,
(Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 5(6) and 11A(1)(b) —                            the taxable amount for the purposes of Article 11(A)(1)(b) of
Allocation of business goods for private purposes — Tax-                        Sixth Directive 77/388 must be determined with reference to
ation if the goods or the component parts thereof gave                          the price, at the time of the allocation, of the goods incorporated
rise to entitlement to deduct input VAT — Meaning of                            in the vehicle which constitute component parts of the goods
           ‘component parts’ of the goods allocated)                            allocated, within the meaning of Article 5(6) of that directive.
                           (2001/C 200/35)                                 3.   Where work which is carried out on goods (in this case a motor
                                                                                vehicle) after their purchase and on which input value added tax
                                                                                was deducted does not give rise to liability for value added tax
                                                                                pursuant to Article 5(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 when the
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                vehicle is allocated, the value added tax deducted in respect of
                                                                                that work must be adjusted in accordance with Article 20(1)(b)
                                                                                of that directive if the value of the work in question has not
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          been entirely consumed in the context of the business activity of
                    in the European Court Reports)                              the taxable person before the vehicle is allocated to his private
                                                                                assets.
In Joined Cases C-322/99 and C-323/99: references to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Finanzamt Burgdorf and Hans-Georg Fischer                    (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
(C-322/99) and between Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann and
Klaus Brandenstein (C-323/99) — on the interpretation of
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the


title: Case T-396/15: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2017 — Herm. Sprenger v EUIPO — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup) (EU trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/48

         Order of the General Court of 30 March 2017 — Herm. Sprenger v EUIPO — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup)
   (Case T-396/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 283/74)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: web2get GmbH & Co. KG (Dülmen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 520/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between web2get GmbH. & Co. and Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-420/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): W. N. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Harmonisation of laws — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation — Spontaneous exchange of information)

text:
8.7.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 192/5
’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the                of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the
proceedings pending before that court between C. Baars and                 competent authorities of the Member States in the field of
Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gor-                direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) — the Court (First
inchem — on the interpretation of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC              Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) and                P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advo-
Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC                  cate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
and 58 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,                       has ruled:
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Adminis-                  Article 4(1) (a) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April                1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of
2000, in which it has ruled:                                               the Member States in the field of direct taxation must be interpreted
                                                                           as follows:
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
precludes a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in       — it is not necessary for the loss of tax referred to therein to be
the main proceedings, which, in circumstances where a holding in the            covered by an express measure on the part of the competent
capital of a company confers on the shareholder a definite influence            authority of another Member State.
over the company’s decisions and allows him to determine its
activities,                                                                — the expression a loss of tax refers to an unjustified saving in tax
                                                                                in another Member State.
— allows nationals of Member States resident on its territory an
     exemption, in whole or in part, from wealth tax in respect of the
     assets invested in shares in the company,                             (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
— but makes that exemption subject to the condition that the
     holding be held in a company established in the Member State
     concerned, thus denying it to holders of shares in companies
     established in other Member States.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    in Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-
                          of 13 April 2000                                               transposition of Directive 94/62/EC)
in Case C-420/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                             (2000/C 192/10)
the Nederlandse Raad van State): W. N. v Staatssecretaris
                          van Financiën (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Harmonisation of laws — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual
assistance by the authorities of the Member States in
the field of direct taxation — Spontaneous exchange of                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                             information)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                           (2000/C 192/09)                                 In Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         N. Dafniou and D. Tsagkaraki) application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by failing to inform the Commission of the laws,
                                                                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     with European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
                    in the European Court Reports)                         20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
                                                                           1994 L 365, p. 10), or failing to adopt the necessary measures
In Case C-420/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              to comply therewith, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse                    its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive —
Raad van State (Netherlands Council of State) for a preliminary            the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and F. Macken
W. N. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — on the interpret-               (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ation of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC              Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:


title: Case T-34/11: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014  — Canon Europa v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissible)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/38

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — Canon Europa v Commission
   (Case T-34/11) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Customs Union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings - Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those subheadings - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissible))
   2014/C 409/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Canon Europa NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA.

               3.

               Canon Europa NV shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-6/08: Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle Deluxe)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/55

         Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle Deluxe)
   (Case T-6/08)
   (2008/C 64/89)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 1 October 2007, Case R 568/2006-2 (CTM 3 156 924);

               —

               decide that the contested CTM application No 3 156 924 RED MUG device with ‘Golden Eagle Deluxe’ must be rejected;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order Master Beverage, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, in case it should become an intervening party in this case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Golden Eagle Deluxe’ for goods in class 30 — application No 3 156 924

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The Community, international and national figurative marks and word marks ‘Red Cup’, ‘Gold Blend’ and representations of a cup for, inter alia, coffee

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the conflicting trade marks have a high degree of visual similarity because of an identical arrangement of nine elements present in both the trade mark applied for and in most of the earlier marks, which are inherently distinctive.


title: Case T-244/15: Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Klyuyev/Council

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/23

         Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Klyuyev/Council
   (Case T-244/15)
   (2015/C 228/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Gherson, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1) insofar as they apply to the applicant;

               —

               alternatively, declare that article 1(1) of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 (as amended) and article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (as amended), are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014, as amended (the ‘Decision’), insofar as it imposes restrictive measures against the applicant, is inconsistent with the Decision’s expressly invoked objectives (e.g. democracy; rule of law; respect for human rights), and does not fall within the principles and objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (‘CFSP’) set out in article 21 TEU. The conditions for relying on Article 29 TEU are therefore not satisfied by the Decision. As the Decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on article 215(2) TFEU to enact the Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, as amended (the ‘Regulation’). Recent events have made clear that the applicant will not get fair, independent or unbiased treatment by Ukrainian investigating or judicial authorities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the criteria for inclusion in the annex to the Decision and the Regulation (together, the ‘Contested Measures’). The applicant was not at the date of listing subject to criminal proceedings by the Ukrainian authorities for the misappropriation of public funds or assets or abuse of office thereby causing a loss to Ukrainian public funds or assets.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has not been given serious or credible or concrete evidence in support of a case which would justify the imposition of restrictive measures on him. In particular, there is no evidence of any careful or impartial examination as to whether the alleged reasons said to justify redesignation are well founded in light of the representations made by the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. The reasons contain no detail and consist merely of a general stereotypical formulation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were not ‘provided for by law’; they were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the Applicant to put his case effectively to the Council; they are not restricted to any specific property which is said to represent misappropriated state funds or even limited to the amount of funds alleged to have been misappropriated; they have been treated as an indication of guilt leading to adverse actions in other jurisdictions.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, the Council relied on materially inaccurate facts. The allegation that the applicant is subject to criminal proceedings by the Ukrainian authorities for the misappropriation of public funds or assets or abuse of office thereby causing a loss to Ukrainian public funds or assets or likely to be guilty of the same is demonstrably false.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, raised in support of the declaration of illegality, alleging that if Article 1(1) the Decision and Article 3(1) of the Regulation are to be interpreted so as to capture (a) any investigation by a Ukrainian authority irrespective of whether there is any judicial decision or proceedings underpinning, controlling or overseeing it; and/or (b) any ‘abuse of office as a public-office holder in order to procure an unjustified advantage’ irrespective of whether there is an allegation of misappropriation of State funds, the designation criterion would, given the arbitrary width and scope that would result from such a broad interpretation, lack a proper legal base; and/or be disproportionate to the objectives of the Decision and Regulation. The designation criterion would therefore be unlawful.


title: Case C-96/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Domingos Freitas, Maria Adilia Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/43

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Domingos Freitas, Maria Adilia Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA
   (Case C-96/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Victim’s contribution to loss or injury - Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)
   2013/C 225/74
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Domingos Freitas, Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto

      Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling -Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Interpretation of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1), Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33, in particular, Article 1a thereof), Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65) and Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14) — National provisions allowing the exclusion or limitation of the right of victims to compensation for accidents on the basis of an assessment of his contribution to their own loss or injury — Accident between an automobile and a cyclist caused by the latter

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case F-88/08 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014  — Michel v ETF

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014 — Michel v ETF
   (Case F-88/08 RENV)
   2014/C 184/80
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case C-358/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 24 September 2002 in the case of Yamina Haddad against Belgian State

text:
C 305/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.12.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and
                                                                                vegetables and certain products of plant origin, including
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    fruit and vegetables respectively, or in failing to notify the
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                       Commission of their adoption, the Republic of Austria
      Commission Directive 2000/57/EC of 22 September                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 76/
      895/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of maximum                     2.     Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables
      and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
      vegetables respectively, the Republic of Austria has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                          Pleas in law and principle arguments
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                          The obligation of the Member States to implement the
                                                                          directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
                                                                          with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
Pleas in law and principle arguments
                                                                          case that time-limit expired on 31.03.2001, by which time the
                                                                          Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary measures.
The obligation of the Member States do implement the
directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
                                                                          (1 ) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 78.
with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
case that time-limit expired on 31 March 2001, by which time
the Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary
measures.
( 1) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 76.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du
                                                                          travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 24 Sep-
                                                                          tember 2002 in the case of Yamina Haddad against Belgian
                                                                                State
Action brought on 3 October 2002 by the Commission                                                   (Case C-358/02)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                               Austria
                                                                                (2002/C 305/20)
                           (Case C-355/02)
                           (2002/C 305/19)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the tribunal du travail
                                                                          de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 24 September 2002,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     preliminary ruling in the case of Yamina Haddad against
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   Belgian State on the following question:
on 3 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,           Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement signed on
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             27 April 1976 between the Member States of the European
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner         Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as
Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                                       approved on behalf of the Community by Regulation No 2211/
                                                                          78 of 26 September 1978 (1), be interpreted, inter alia in the
                                                                          light of Article 14 of the European Convention for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
                                                                          signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and Article 1 of Protocol
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             No 1 thereto of 20 March 1952, as precluding a Member State
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                from refusing to grant a benefit such as a disability allowance,
      Commission Directive 2000/58/EC of 22 September                     as provided under its laws in favour of its nationals and
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 86/             citizens of the European Union, to a Moroccan national who
      362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of                 is a student and the wife of an unemployed Moroccan national,
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 305/13
both resident in Belgium, when the couple are insured on a                 Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo Ripa di Meana
voluntary basis under the Belgian social security scheme in                and European Parliament was brought before the Court of
respect of health insurance?                                               Justice of the European Communities on 8 October 2002 by
                                                                           Carlo Ripa di Meana, represented by Wilma Viscardini and
                                                                           Gabriele Donà.
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978
     concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between
     the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
     (OJ L 264 of 27.9.1978, p. 1).                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —      set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                9 July 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance of the European Communities in Case T-127/01
                                                                                between Carlo Ripa di Meana and European Parliament;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                     —      declare admissible the application in Case T-127/01;
Modena, Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari by
order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the Criminal                        —      refer Case T-127/01 back to the Court of First Instance
             Proceedings against Christian Lanzotti                               for judgment on the substance;
                          (Case C-359/02)                                  —      order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
                                                                                appeal and of proceedings at first instance on the matter
                          (2002/C 305/21)                                         of admissibility.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           Pleas and main arguments
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Modena,
Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari (Modena District
Court, Office of the Investigating Judge) of 27 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a                    By order of 9 July 2002, the Court of First Instance upheld the
preliminary ruling in the Criminal Proceedings against Chris-              objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament
tian Lanzotti on the following question:                                   in Case T-127/01 and, accordingly, declared inadmissible the
                                                                           application made by Mr Ripa di Meana for annulment of the
Are national rules such as Articles 4(1), 4a and 4b of the Italian         decision of the European Parliament of 26 March 2001
Law No 401/89, as amended by Article 37 of Law No 388/00,                  suspending the applicant’s pension as former Member of the
which prohibit and make subject to criminal penalties the                  European Parliament following his election to the legislative
pursuit by any person in any place of the activities of taking,            assembly for the Region of Umbria.
accepting, booking and forwarding bets placed, in particular
on sporting events, without obtaining the prior authorisation
and licence required by domestic law, compatible with                      In particular, the Court of First Instance held Mr Ripa di
Article 43 et seq. and Article 49 et seq. EC on the freedom                Meana’s application to be out of time inasmuch as the letter of
of establishment and the freedom to provide cross-border                   26 March 2001, not containing any new information not
services?                                                                  contained in the letter of the European Parliament of 26 Janu-
                                                                           ary 2001 and since it was not the result of a re-examination of
                                                                           the applicant’s situation in the light of factual and legal
                                                                           arguments put forward by him in his letter of 15 March
                                                                           2001, was to be deemed ‘merely confirming the decision of
                                                                           26 January 2001’.
Appeal brought on 8 October 2002 by Carlo Ripa di
Meana against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the                    Mr Ripa di Meana is challenging that order on the ground that
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       it is vitiated by a number of manifest errors of law.
European Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo
            Ripa di Meana and European Parliament
                                                                           In particular, Mr Ripa di Meana claims that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance: committed an error of procedure; infringed the rights
                         (Case C-360/02 P)                                 of the defence; attributed the wrong legal classification to the
                                                                           letters of 26 January 2001 and 26 March 2001. Furthermore,
                          (2002/C 305/22)                                  the Court of First Instance misapplied Community case-law
                                                                           concerning confirmatory acts and did not take account of
                                                                           case-law regarding ‘excusable error’.
An appeal against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-120/01: Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 150/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of                  Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by Eoghan O’Hannra-
         the European Communities against Ireland                     chain against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
                                                                      by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-
                                                                      99/99 between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the
                         (Case C-120/01)                                                      European Parliament
                                                                                (Case C-121/01 P)
                         (2001/C 150/26)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/27)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
Justice of the European Communities on 16 March 2001 by               by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission of the European Communities, represented               European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address            between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the European
for service in Luxembourg.                                            Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 19 March 2001 by E. O’Hannra-
                                                                      chain, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the
                                                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Brussels.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing by 16 September 1999 to prepare        —     set aside the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001 by
      and communicate to the Commission the plans, outlines                 the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the EC
      and summaries required pursuant to Article 11 and                     in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99;
      Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) on the
      disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinat-              —     consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought
      ed terphenyls (PCB/PCT), Ireland has failed to fulfil its                   by him in the proceedings at first instance, and thus:
      obligations under that Directive;
                                                                            —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 16 July
                                                                                1998 appointing Mr. L.V. to the post of Director-
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             General of the Directorate-General for Finance and
                                                                                Financial Control and the decision of the same date
                                                                                rejecting the appellant’s application for the post and,
                                                                                in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision
                                                                                adopted on 21 January 1999 rejecting the appellant’s
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   complaint;
                                                                            —     order the respondent to pay damages estimated to
                                                                                amount, on a fair and equitable basis, to
Article 11 of the Directive requires Member States to draw up                     100 000 euro;
plans and outlines in connection with the decontamination or
disposal of equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls            —     order the respondent to pay the costs.
(PCBs), and to communicate these plans and outlines to the
Commission. Article 4(1) obliges Member States to compile
inventories of equipment with certain PCB volumes and to
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
send summaries of such inventories to the Commission.
                                                                      —     Infringement of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                            officials: the Court of First Instance misconstrued
To date Ireland has not communicated such plans, outlines                   Article 29 of the Staff Regulations by taking the view that
and summaries to the Commission, nor is the Commission in                   the appointing authority may have recourse to the
possession of any other information enabling it to conclude                 procedure referred to in Article 29(2) of the Staff
that Ireland has prepared these plans, outlines and summaries.              Regulations after initiating a recruitment procedure under
                                                                            Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations without first
                                                                            carrying out an examination of the comparative merits of
                                                                            the eligible candidates under Article 29(1) with a view to
(1) OJ L 243, 24.09.1996, p. 31.                                            verifying whether they meet the requirements of the
                                                                            notice of vacancy. By acting in that way, the appointing
                                                                            authority failed to examine whether, in the present case
                                                                            and in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                            the promotion/transfer procedure was likely to result in
                                                                            the appointment of a person possessing the highest levels
                                                                            of ability, efficiency and integrity.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-324/95)

text:
No C 333/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Saarlandisches           Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Oberlandesgericht by order of that court of 6 October 1995           Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
in the case of David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen                down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
Hayes, his wife, in their capacity as a partnership under            1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
English civil law, v. Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation,              necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the
       represented by its liquidator, Klaus D. Wein                  conclusions of the Commission .
                         Case C-323 /95
                                                                     (') OJ No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 41 .
                         ( 95/C 333/ 13 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Saarlandisches
Oberlandesgericht ( Saarland Higher Regional Court ) of
6 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry            Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of
on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 the European Communities against Ireland
David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes, his wife, in
                                                                                Case C-325 /95 )
their capacity as a partnership under English civil law, v.
Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation, represented by its                                           ( 95/C 333/ 15 )
liquidator, Klaus D. Wein, on the following question :
                                                                     An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Where British nationals possessing no residence or assets in         Justice of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
Germany have brought proceedings before a German civil               by the Commission of the European Communities,
court against a limited liability company established in             represented by Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal
Germany for payment of the purchase price of goods                   Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
supplied, and are required by the competent German court,            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
on application by the defendant, to furnish security for             Centre Wagner.
costs pursuant to paragraph 110 of the German
Zivilprozefiordnung ( Code of Civil Procedure ), does that           The Applicant claims that the Court should :
constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality
contrary to the first paragraph of Article 7 of the EEC              1 . declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,
Treaty ?                                                                 regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with
                                                                         — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991
                                                                             concerning the animal health conditions governing
Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of                       the placing on the market of aquaculture animals
         the European Communities against Ireland                            and products (');
                       ( Case C-324/95 )                                 — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991
                         ( 95/C 333/ 14 )                                    laying down the health conditions for the
                                                                             production and the placing on the market of live
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                    bivalve molluscs ( 2 );
Justice of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
by the Commission of the European Communities,                           — Council Directive 91 /493/EEC of 22 July 1991
represented by Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal                          laying down the health conditions for the
Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in                     production and the placing on the market of fishery
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         products ( 3 );
Centre Wagner .
                                                                         — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                                 down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to
                                                                             fishery products caught on board certain vessels in
1 . declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or                accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Council
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       Directive 91 /493/EEC ( 4 ), Ireland has failed to fulfil
    Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November 1990                        its respective obligations under those Directives;
    concerning public health and animal health problems
    affecting the production and placing on the market of            2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .
    rabbit meat and farmed game meat ( 1 ) Ireland has failed
    to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                 Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                     be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                     Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall          down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions


title: Case T-194/04: Action brought on 27 May 2004 by The Bavarian Lager Company against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/21

         Action brought on 27 May 2004 by The Bavarian Lager Company against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-194/04)
   (2004/C 201/44)
   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 May 2004 by The Bavarian Lager Company, Clitheroe, United Kingdom, represented by Mr J. Pearson and Mr C. Bright Solicitors with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Commission's acceptance of the UK Government's amendment to Article 7(2)(a) of the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989 No 2390) (the ‘guest beer provision’) was in breach of Article 28 (then Article 30) of the EC Treaty;

               —

               Declare that the Commission should not have accepted the aforementioned amendment and in doing so, the Commission is itself was in breach of Article 28 (then Article 30) of the EC Treaty;

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Commission dated 18 March 2004 to refuse to disclose to the applicant certain documents;

               —

               Order the Commission to produce the full set of names of persons attending the meeting held on 11 October 1996 at which were present officers of the Directorate-General for the Internal Market, officials of the UK Government Department of Trade and Industry and representatives of the Conféderation des Brasseurs du Marché Commun; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant company was formed on 28 May 1992 to import German beer for sale in public houses in the United Kingdom. In 1993 the applicant complained to the Commission about an alleged violation of Article 28 EC (then Article 30 of the EC Treaty) in connexion with the ‘guest beer provision’ in UK legislation. Under this provision breweries are required to allow public houses bound to them by exclusive purchasing agreements to offer a ‘guest’ beer from a different brewery. The guest beer had to be a beer undergoing fermentation in the cask from which it was sold, a type of beer which is almost exclusively produced in the United Kingdom. The beer sold by the applicant as well as most beers produced outside the United Kingdom could not be covered by this provision and the applicant considered this a measure of equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction. In a letter of 21 April 1997 the Commission informed the applicant that, in view of a proposed amendment of the guest beer provision, the procedure against the United Kingdom had been suspended and would be brought to a close as soon as the amendment had been adopted.
   On 5 December 2003 the applicant requested the Commission, on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), to grant it full access to the minutes of a meeting on this matter, which took place on 11 October 1996 between representatives of the Commission, the United Kingdom government and breweries. In particular, the applicant asked the Commission to reveal the identity of certain persons whose names had been blanked out in the minutes previously disclosed to the applicant. The Commission rejected the applicant's request and confirmed its refusal in a letter of the Secretary General to the applicant, dated 18 March 2004. In support of its refusal it invoked the need to protect personal data of the persons present at the meeting, as well as a potential risk to the Commission's ability to carry out investigations in such cases if the identity of persons giving information to the Commission were to be disclosed.
   By its application, the applicant requests first of all a declaration against the Commission's decision to suspend the procedure against the United Kingdom. In this respect, the applicant invokes a violation of Articles 28 and 12 EC.
   Concerning the Commission's refusal to grant it access to the documents requested, the applicant submits that Article 2 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) obliges the Commission to make full disclosure of the persons who attended the meeting in question, and that none of the exceptions contained in Article 4 apply. The applicant further contends that the exception in Article 4 paragraph 3 may be disregarded because there is overwhelming public interest in disclosure.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001 P. 43 - 48


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2000 in Case C-425/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV (Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark)

text:
21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 302/3
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for the annulment of Com-                  Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
mission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning                    21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
State aid in favour of Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre                  relating to trade marks cannot be interpreted as meaning that where
Français (CELF) (OJ 1999 L 44, p. 37) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     —     a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                     se or because of the reputation it enjoys with the public, and
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it:                   —     a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of the mark,
                                                                                uses, in the course of trade in goods or services which are
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                      identical with, or similar to, those for which the trade mark is
                                                                                registered, a sign which so closely corresponds to the mark as to
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               give rise to the possibility of its being associated with that mark,
                                                                           the exclusive right enjoyed by the proprietor entitles him to prevent
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                the use of the sign by that third party if the distinctive character of
                                                                           the mark is such that the possibility of such association giving rise to
                                                                           confusion cannot be ruled out.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 22 June 2000
in Case C-425/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Marca Mode CV v
               Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV (1)
                                                                                of 27 June 2000
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Trade marks
— Likelihood of confusion — Likelihood of association                      in Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communi-
             between the sign and the trade mark)                                             ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                          (2000/C 302/05)
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with
                                                                            the common market — Recovery — Absolute impossibility)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-425/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                       in the European Court Reports)
court between Marca Mode CV and Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux
BV — on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                    In Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communities
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ                  (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and A.M. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese
1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                     Republic (Agents: J. Mota de Campos, L. Fernandes and
of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                    M.L. Duarte) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and                   cancel and recover, within the prescribed period, the aid from
F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs; Advocate General; H. von                  which EPAC — Empresa para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 unduly benefited, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it has ruled:                           its obligations under Commission Decision 97/762/EC of


title: Case T-200/14: Action brought on 27 March 2014  — Ben Ali v Council

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/23

         Action brought on 27 March 2014 — Ben Ali v Council
   (Case T-200/14)
   2014/C 202/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Adopt a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, to ensure that the Commission disclose ‘all documents relating to the adoption’ of the contested regulation;

               —

               Annul, firstly, Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and, secondly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant an overall sum of EUR 1 00  000 in compensation for all forms of damage;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 30  000 for legal expenses in support of the application and, in addition, in accordance with Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure for recoverable costs incurred;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-301/11 Ben Ali v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011, C 226, p. 29.


title: Joined Cases C-629/15 P and C-630/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 June 2017 — Novartis Europharm Ltd v European Commission, Teva Pharma BV (C-629/15 P), Hospira UK Ltd (C-630/15 P) (Appeal — Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation — Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 — Centralised procedure at European Union level — Development of a medicinal product that was the subject of a marketing authorisation for other therapeutic indications — Separate marketing authorisation and new trade name — Directive 2001/83/EC — Second subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) — Concept of a ‘global marketing authorisation’ — Regulatory data protection period)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 June 2017 — Novartis Europharm Ltd v European Commission, Teva Pharma BV (C-629/15 P), Hospira UK Ltd (C-630/15 P)
   (Joined Cases C-629/15 P and C-630/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 - Centralised procedure at European Union level - Development of a medicinal product that was the subject of a marketing authorisation for other therapeutic indications - Separate marketing authorisation and new trade name - Directive 2001/83/EC - Second subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) - Concept of a ‘global marketing authorisation’ - Regulatory data protection period))
   (2017/C 283/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici, A. Sipos and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents), Teva Pharma BV (represented by: K. Bacon QC, instructed by C. Firth, Solicitor) (C-629/15 P), Hospira UK Ltd (represented by: J. Stratford QC, instructed by E. Vickers and N. Stoate, Solicitors) (C-630/15 P)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-629/15 P and C-630/15 P;

               2.

               Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, by Teva Pharma BV and by Hospira UK Ltd in Cases C-629/15 P and C-630/15 P.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case F-56/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Strobl v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Grading under the new, less favourable rules — Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of equality — Age discrimination)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/21

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Strobl v Commission
   (Case F-56/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Grading under the new, less favourable rules - Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equality - Age discrimination)
   2012/C 138/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Strobl (Greifenberg-Beuern, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall, Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm et I. Šulce, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 28 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-260/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case F-34/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/58

         Action brought on 16 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-34/13)
   2013/C 207/97
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/231/12 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre stage of that competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 31 January 2013 on the applicant’s claim of 25 September 2012;

               —

               Annul the decisions of 28 June 2012 and 16 July 2012 under which the applicant is notified of the refusal of admittance to the pre-selection stage (‘assessment centre’) of Competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 in which he participated;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-316/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15/04/2011 in Case T-96/11: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/28

         Appeal brought on 22 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15/04/2011 in Case T-96/11: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-316/11 P)
   2011/C 269/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Admit the complaint filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.;

               —

               Annul the decision of the General Court of April 15, 2011, T-96/11;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the contested order should be annulled on the following grounds:

               —

               The reasoning of the General Court is defective;

               —

               The General Court did not consider the arguments advanced by the holder of the trade mark.


title: Case C-296/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil — Slovenia) — Medisanus d.o.o. v Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 2 and Article 23(2) and (8) — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Public contract for supplying a hospital — National legislation requiring that hospitals are to be supplied as a matter of priority with medicinal products obtained from national plasma — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil — Slovenia) — Medisanus d.o.o. v Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota
   (Case C-296/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 2 and Article 23(2) and (8) - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Public contract for supplying a hospital - National legislation requiring that hospitals are to be supplied as a matter of priority with medicinal products obtained from national plasma - Principle of equal treatment))
   (2017/C 249/03)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Medisanus d.o.o.

      Defendant: Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2 and Article 23(2) and (8) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, and Article 34 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 36 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding a clause in the tender specifications for a public contract which, in accordance with the law of the Member State to which the contracting authority belongs, requires medicinal products derived from plasma, which are the subject matter of the public procurement at issue, to be obtained from plasma collected in that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


title: Case T-398/12: Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Cosma Moden v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/30

      Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Cosma Moden v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)
      (Case T-398/12)
      (2012/C 331/58)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Gemany)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 July 2012 in Case R 2011/2010-4 in respect of Community trade mark application No 6 589 808 and alter that decision to the effect that the appeal is well founded and that the opposition must as a result also be rejected as to the remainder;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

         Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘COSMA’ for goods and services in Classes 24, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6 589 808

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘comma’ and the national word mark ‘comma’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 35

         Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-567/10: Action brought on 16 December 2010 — Vivendi v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/18

         Action brought on 16 December 2010 — Vivendi v Commission
   (Case T-567/10)
   2011/C 72/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vivendi (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Fréget, J.Y. Ollier and M. Struys, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 1 October 2010 by which it rejected the complaint lodged by Vivendi on 2 March 2009 (registered under number 2009/4269), for infringement by the French Republic of Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 December 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services and, consequently, Article 106 TFEU, by granting a regulatory advantage as regards setting the level of telephone subscriptions;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas as regards the substance:

               1.

               The first plea is based on an infringement of the principle of sound administration in that the Commission limited itself to a summary examination of the complaint submitted to it by the applicant.

               2.

               The second plea is based on an error of law in relation to the assessment of the concept of special and exclusive rights within the meaning of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) and of Article 106(3) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Commission cannot refrain from sanctioning the fact that the French Republic granted a regulatory advantage to France Télécom by setting the tariff for the universal service telephone subscription at a level which excludes the services offered by any of France Télécom's competitors by referring to the fact that no private operator made an application to eliminate the regulatory advantage.

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in the alternative, that such applications were made.

               3.

               The third plea is based on an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the scope of the obligations of the national regulator resulting from the electronic communications directives, since the conduct of the Member State cannot be excused by the incompleteness or imprecision of the regulatory framework.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).


title: Case C-539/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that Court of 19 December 2003 in the case of 1. ROCHE NEDERLAND B.V., 2. ROCHE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS INC., 3. N.V. ROCHE S.A., 4. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE ACTIEN-GESELLSCHAFT, 5. PRODUITS ROCHE S.A., 6. ROCHE PRODUCTS LIMITED, 7. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE A.G., 8. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE WIEN GMBH, and 9. ROCHE AB against Dr. Frederick James PRIMUS, 2. Dr. Milton David GOLDENBERG

text:
6.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 59/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Nederlanden by order of that Court of 19 December 2003                   Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that
in the case of 1. ROCHE NEDERLAND B.V., 2. ROCHE                         court of 18 November 2003 in the case of Lambert
DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS INC., 3. N.V. ROCHE S.A.,                                       Roodbeen against the Republic of Austria
4. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE ACTIEN-GESELLSCHAFT,
5. PRODUITS ROCHE S.A., 6. ROCHE PRODUCTS LIM-
ITED, 7. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE A.G., 8. HOFFMANN-                                                   (Case C-541/03)
LA ROCHE WIEN GMBH, and 9. ROCHE AB against
Dr. Frederick James PRIMUS, 2. Dr. Milton David GOLD-
                            ENBERG
                                                                                (2004/C 59/19)
                        (Case C-539/03)
                         (2004/C 59/18)                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                         (Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 18 November
                                                                         2003, received at the Court Registry on 23 December 2003,
                                                                         for a preliminary ruling in case of Lambert Roodbeen against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the Republic of Austria on the following question:
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 19 Decem-
ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 22 December
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. ROCHE                   Are Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
NEDERLAND B.V., 2. ROCHE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS INC.,                        25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures
3. N.V. ROCHE S.A., 4. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE ACTIEN-                         concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals
GESELLSCHAFT, 5. PRODUITS ROCHE S.A., 6. ROCHE                           which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security
PRODUCTS LIMITED, 7. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE A.G.,                          or public health (‘the directive’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning
8. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE WIEN GMBH, and 9. ROCHE AB                          that the administrative authorities — notwithstanding an
against Dr. Frederick James PRIMUS, 2. Dr. Milton David                  internal appeal facility — may not, save in cases of urgency,
GOLDENBERG on the following questions:                                   take a decision ordering expulsion from the territory without
                                                                         obtaining an opinion from a competent authority within the
                                                                         meaning of Article 9(1) of the directive (for which no provision
A.   Is there a connection, as required for the application of           is made in the Austrian legal system), where appeals against
     point 1 of Article 6 of the Brussels Convention, between            their decisions may be lodged with the courts of public law
     a patent infringement action brought by a holder of a               only subject to the limitations that:
     European patent against a defendant having its registered
     office in the State of the court in which the proceedings
     are brought, on the one hand, and against various                   (a)   such appeals have no suspensory effect from the outset;
     defendants having their registered offices in Contracting
     States other than that of the State of the court in which
     the proceedings are brought, on the other hand, who,                (b) those courts are barred from taking decisions on appro-
     according to the patent holder, are infringing that patent                priateness and are able merely to annul (quash) contested
     in one or more other Contracting States?                                  decisions;
B.   If the answer to Question A is not or not unreservedly in           (c)   one of those courts (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof —
     the affirmative, in what circumstances is such a connec-                  the Higher Administrative Court) is limited, as regards
     tion deemed to exist, and is it relevant in this context                  findings of fact, to an examination of whether the
     whether, for example,                                                     conclusions based on the facts are warranted; and
     —     the defendants form part of one and the same group            (d) the other of those courts (the Verfassungsgerichtshof —
           of companies?                                                       the Constitutional Court), in addition to being limited, as
                                                                               regards the facts, to an examination of whether the
                                                                               conclusions based on the facts are warranted, is limited
     —     the defendants are acting together on the basis of a
                                                                               to an examination of the infringement of rights guaran-
           common policy, and if so is the place from which
                                                                               teed by the constitution?
           that policy originates relevant?
     —     the alleged infringing acts of the various defendants
           are the same or virtually the same?                           (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117.