title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-14/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels): criminal proceedings against Paul Denuit (Directive 89/552/EEC - Telecommunications - Television broadcasting - Jurisdiction over broadcasters)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 228/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2 . Article 3 of Directive 83/182/EEC has direct effect
                        ( Fifth Chamber)                                   and confers on individuals rights which they may
                                                                           assert against a Member State that has failed to
                        of 29 May 1997                                     transpose that Directive into domestic law, or has
in Case C-3 89/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 transposed it incorrectly, and which the national
the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessaloniki ): Siegfried                       courts must safeguard.
                   Klattner v. Greek State (')
(Tax exemptions applicable to temporary and permanent                  3 . Article 3 of Directive 83/182/EEC must be interpreted
importation of means of transport — Directive 83/182/                      as precluding domestic legislation under which the
                               EEC)                                         customs duties and other taxes applicable together
                                                                            with additional duty equal to the amount of those
                          ( 97/C 228/01 )                                  duties and taxes are to be payable immediately where
                                                                           a second private vehicle is imported temporarily.
                 (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-389/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
( Administrative Court of First Instance ), Thessaloniki
( Greece ), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                         ( Sixth Chamber)
pending before that court between Siegfried Klattner and                                        of 29 May 1997
Greek State — on the interpretation of Council Directive
83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within                   in Case C-14/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Community for certain means of transport temporarily               the Tribunal de Premiere Instance, Brussels ): criminal
imported into one Member State from another ( OJ No                                 proceedings against Paul Denuit ( ! )
L 105 , 23 . 4 . 1983 , p. 59 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),          (Directive 89/552ZEEC — Telecommunications —
composed of: J C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the                 Television broadcasting — Jurisdiction over broadcasters)
Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
( Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola,                                                 ( 97/C 228/02 )
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in                                     (Language of the case: French)
which it has ruled :
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 1 . Article 3 of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of                                published in the European Court Reports)
      28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the
      Community for certain means of transport temporarily
      imported into one Member State from another must                 In Case C-14/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
      be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for                 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Premiere Instance,
      which it provides may be granted in respect of more              Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
      than one private vehicle per person.                             proceedings before that court against Paul Denuit — on
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/2                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 7 . 97
the interpretation of Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Council             judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
Directive      89/552/EEC        of 3  October   1989    on   the      being Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,                   Julian Currall ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed
regulation or administrative action in Member States                   of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities           the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10. 1989, p. 23 ), — the Court ( Sixth             Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
Chamber ) composed of: G. E Mancini, President of the                  General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the
Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn                Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                   which it :
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, gave a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
which it ruled :                                                       1 . dismisses the appeal;
1 . Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of                  2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
      3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
      provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                       O OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
      administrative action in Member State concerning the
      pursuit of television broadcasting activities is to be
      interpreted as meaning that a television broadcaster
       comes under the jurisdiction of the Member State in
      which it is established. The origin of programmes
       broadcast by the television broadcaster or their
       conformity with Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive are                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      irrelevant in determining the Member State having
      jurisdiction over such a broadcaster pursuant to                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
      Article 2 (1 ).                                                                           of 5 June 1997
                                                                       in Case C-285/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
2 . Article 2 (2) of Directive 89/552 is to be interpreted as          the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin): Suat Kol v. Land Ber
       meaning that a Member State may not oppose the                                                lin H
       retransmission on its territory of broadcasts of a
       television broadcaster over which another Member                 (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
      State has jurisdiction when those broadcasts do not              Council of Association — Free movement of workers —
       conform with the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 of            Legal employment — Periods of employment under a
       the Directive.                                                             residence permit fraudulently obtained)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/04 )
( ] ) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           published in the European Court Reports)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 29 May 1997                              In Case C-285/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Oberverwaltungsgericht
in Case C-153/96 P: Jan Robert de Rijk v. Commission of                ( Higher Administrative Court) Berlin for a preliminary
                  the European Communities (')                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
 (Appeal — Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance                between Suat Kol and Land Berlin — on the interpretation
scheme for officials posted outside the Community —                    of Articles 6 ( 1 ) and 14 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of
       Conditions for reimbursement of medical expenses)                19 September 1980 on the development of the
                                                                       Association, adopted by the Council of Association
                            ( 97/C 228/03                              established by the Association Agreement between the
                                                                       European Economic Community and Turkey — the Court
                  (Language of the case: French)                       ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
                                                                       of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch, H.
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
            published in the European Court Reports)                   M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                       Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                       judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
In Case C-153/96 P: Jan Robert de Rijk ( represented by
Nicolas Lhoest ) — appeal against the judgment of the
 Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber) of 7 March 1996              Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of 19 September 1980
 in Case T-362/94 De Rijk v. Commission [ 1996] ECR-SC                 on the development of the Association, adopted by the
 11-365 ( English abstract at p. 117 ), seeking to have that            Council of Association established by the Association


C 226/18                EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.9.2003
Application for annulment of decision C(2003) 564 final of                     lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities —
17 February 2003 concerning the system of State aid imple-                     application for suspension of enforcement of the Commission
mented by Belgium in favour of coordination centres estab-                     Decision of 18 June 2003 terminating the applicant's assign-
lished in Belgium, the Court of First Instance (First Chamber,                 ment to a post in the delegation of that institution in Nairobi
Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,                  (Kenya) with effect from 15 July 2003, the President of the
J. Azizi, M. Jaeger, H. Legal and E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges;                  Court of First Instance made an order of 3 July 2003, the
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 16 May 2003, the                      operative part of which is as follows:
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case T-140/03        1.   Enforcement of the Commission Decision of 18 June 2003 termi-
     Forum 187 ASBL v Commission in favour of the Court of Justice                  nating the applicant's assignment to a post in the delegation of
     in order to enable the latter to rule on the application for                   that institution in Nairobi (Kenya) is suspended with effect from
     annulment.                                                                     15 July 2003 until the end of the present interim proceedings.
2.   The costs are reserved.
                                                                               2.   Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-78/03 (1)
                           of 3 July 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 226/39)
in Case T-249/03 R: Y v Commission of the European
                            Communities                                                            (Language of the Case: French)
(Interim measures — Official — Article 105(2) of the Rules                     By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
                             of Procedure)                                     the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                               ordered the removal from the register of Case T-78/03:
                          (2003/C 226/38)                                      Haladjian Frères v Commission of the European Communities.
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-249/03 R Y, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by S. Papanikolaou,                          (1) OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-409/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Teleos PLC, Unique Distribution Ltd, Synectiv Ltd, New Communications Ltd, Quest Trading Company Ltd, Phones International Ltd, AGM Associates Ltd, DVD Components Ltd, Fonecomp Ltd, Bulk GSM Ltd, Libratech Ltd, Rapid Marketing Services Ltd, Earthshine Ltd, Stardex (UK) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — First subparagraph of Article 28a(3) and first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) — Intra-Community acquisition — Intra-Community supply — Exemption — Goods dispatched or transported to another Member State — Evidence — National measures to combat fraud)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Teleos PLC, Unique Distribution Ltd, Synectiv Ltd, New Communications Ltd, Quest Trading Company Ltd, Phones International Ltd, AGM Associates Ltd, DVD Components Ltd, Fonecomp Ltd, Bulk GSM Ltd, Libratech Ltd, Rapid Marketing Services Ltd, Earthshine Ltd, Stardex (UK) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   (Case C-409/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - First subparagraph of Article 28a(3) and first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) - Intra-Community acquisition - Intra-Community supply - Exemption - Goods dispatched or transported to another Member State - Evidence - National measures to combat fraud)
   (2007/C 297/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Teleos PLC, Unique Distribution Ltd, Synectiv Ltd, New Communications Ltd, Quest Trading Company Ltd, Phones International Ltd, AGM Associates Ltd, DVD Components Ltd, Fonecomp Ltd, Bulk GSM Ltd, Libratech Ltd, Rapid Marketing Services Ltd, Earthshine Ltd, Stardex (UK) Ltd

      Defendants: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 28a(3) and Article 28c(A)(a) 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) — Contract between a supplier and a purchaser of goods containing a clause providing that the purchaser will be responsible for transporting the goods from a warehouse in the Member State of supply to another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 28a(3) and the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000, are, having regard to the term ‘dispatched’ in those two provisions, to be interpreted as meaning that the intra-Community acquisition of goods is effected and the exemption of the intra-Community supply of goods becomes applicable only when the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the purchaser and the supplier establishes that those goods have been dispatched or transported to another Member State and that, as a result of that dispatch or that transport, they have physically left the territory of the Member State of supply.

               2.

               The first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2000/65, is to be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of the Member State of supply from requiring a supplier, who acted in good faith and submitted evidence establishing, at first sight, his right to the exemption of an intra-Community supply of goods, subsequently to account for value added tax on those goods where that evidence is found to be false, without, however, the supplier's involvement in the tax evasion being established, provided that the supplier took every reasonable measure in his power to ensure that the intra-Community supply he was effecting did not lead to his participation in such evasion.

               3.

               The fact that the purchaser made a declaration concerning intra-Community acquisition, such as that in question in the main proceedings, to the tax authorities of the Member State of destination may constitute additional evidence tending to establish that the goods have actually left the territory of the Member State of supply, but it does not constitute conclusive proof for the purposes of the exemption from value added tax of an intra-Community supply.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-118/07: Action brought on 16 April 2007 — P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA v OHIM — Rentrak (PPT)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/24

         Action brought on 16 April 2007 — P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA v OHIM — Rentrak (PPT)
   (Case T-118/07)
   (2007/C 155/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA (Lisbon, Portugal), (represented by: I. de Carvalho Simões and J. Conceição Pimenta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: RENTRAK Corp.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Decision No R. 1040/2005-1 of 7 February 2007 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (‘the Office’) (related case: Decision No 2254/2005 of 28 June 2005 of the Opposition Division of the Office)

               —

               an order that the Office should, in consequence, refuse to register Community trade mark No 1758382 in relation to all the services listed;

               —

               an order that the intervener should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: RENTRAK Corp.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark PPT (Services for the distribution of video-cassettes on the basis of shared revenue or payment for use; rental of videos and DVDs; rental of video-recorders and DVD players; distribution of videotapes; on-line rental of videos, DVDs, video-recorders and DVD players by means of the world wide information net, Class 41)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese national trade mark No 330 375, presenting the verbal element ‘PPTV’ (services relating to ‘Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities’ within Class 41).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding of the opposition and rejection of the application for registration of a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the opposition
   Pleas in law:
   Similarity of services: the Board of Appeal's interpretation to the effect that the services relating to the trade mark at issue, being distribution services only, are not directed at the same consumers, so that they have no connection whatsoever with the services provided by the applicant, is too restrictive.
   Graphic similarity and likelihood of confusion: The three first letters of each of the two distinctive signs are exactly the same. Neither of the trade marks has any immediate meaning for Portuguese consumers, so that they will be taken to be fanciful signs and therefore to be original.
   The likelihood of confusion includes the risk of association.
   Even if Portuguese consumers did succeed in distinguishing the marks, it is not inconceivable that they would ascribe to them the same origin or believe that there were commercial, economic or organisational relations between the proprietor undertakings, which might constitute unfair competition even if that were not the intention of the applicant for registration of the trade mark at issue.


title: Case T-316/13: Action brought on 11 June 2013 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/25

         Action brought on 11 June 2013 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission
   (Case T-316/13)
   (2013/C 226/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo (Cetara, Italy), Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop. (Cetara); Fedemar Srl (Cetara); Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc (Catania, Italy); Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl (Cetara); Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC (Pescara, Italy); and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (Pescara) (represented by: V. Cannizzarro and L. Caroli, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Commission is non-contractually liable for the damage caused by the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea, which was declared invalid by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 17 March 2011 in Case C-221/09; and

               —

               as a result, order the European Commission to provide compensation in respect of the damage caused;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants in the present case claim that the non-contractual liability in question results from the fact that, by Regulation No 530/2008, the Commission had unlawfully prohibited vessels flying the flag of or registered in Greece, France, Italy, Cyprus and Malta from the fishing for bluefin tuna starting from 16 June 2008, even though a similar prohibition was imposed on vessels flying the flag of or registered in Spain only from 23 June 2008.
   According to the applicants, in the present case, all the necessary requirements are met for the European institutions to be found liable as a result of their legislative activity: there is a serious breach of a rule protecting individuals; there is actual harm and there is a causal link between that conduct and the alleged damage.
   They note, in that regard, that Regulation No 530/2008 has been declared wholly invalid by the Court of Justice for breaching the principle of non-discrimination and that, according to settled case-law, the breach of that principle is considered as one of the serious breaches of a superior rule of law which is designed to protect individuals.


title: Case T-457/09: Action brought on 13 November 2009 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/35

         Action brought on 13 November 2009 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
   (Case T-457/09)
   2010/C 11/66
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 3900 final corr. of 12 May 2009 on the State aid C 43/2008 (ex N 390/2008) implemented by Germany for the restructuring of WestLB AG;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant has brought an action for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 3900 final corr. of 12 May 2009 on the State aid C 43/2008 (ex N 390/2008) implemented by Germany for the restructuring of WestLB AG. In that decision, the Commission took the position that, subject to a number of conditions, the notified aid in the form of a guarantee of EUR 5 billion is compatible with the common market.
   In support of its application for annulment the applicant, one of the owners of WestLB AG, submits the following pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the principle of collegiality enshrined in Article 219 EC, since the contested decision was not taken by the Commission as the materially competent body, but by the Commissioner for Competition;

               —

               infringement of Article 87(1) EC, since the Commission did not examine whether competition would be distorted;

               —

               errors in the application of the second alternative in Article 87(3)(b) EC, since the contested decision wrongly interpreted the facts as well as the content and normative structure of that provision; failed to undertake the mandatory review of proportionality and the mandatory balancing test, or undertook them in a manner that was inadequate; contained several errors of assessment and of judgment and imposed disproportionate conditions;

               —

               infringed the principle of proportionality;

               —

               infringed the principle of equal treatment, since the contested decision treats WestLB AG and its owners differently compared to other decisions adopted prior to the financial crisis and other decisions adopted during the present financial crisis, without objectively justified reasons being provided for that difference in treatment;

               —

               infringement of Article 295 EC, since the condition requiring the present owners to sell their shares interferes with the property rights of the owners of WestLB AG as guaranteed and protected by Germany;

               —

               infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (1) which does not provide a substantive and sufficiently definite legal basis for such interference;

               —

               infringement of the obligation to provide reasons under Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-66/13: Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Representation of a bottle)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/30

         Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Representation of a bottle)
   (Case T-66/13)
   2013/C 108/75
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2012 in Case R 129/2012-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark, representing a bottle, for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 10 005 866

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(2), 75, 76(1) and 77 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-383/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 4 september 2003 in the complaint proceedings brought by Ergül Dogan

text:
C 35/2                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.2.2004
2.    It is incumbent on the national court, if examination of the         Is Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of
      existing compensation system discloses a defect in transposition     the Association Council, set up by the Agreement establishing
      of Directive 84/5 and if that defect has adversely affected Mr       an Association between the European Economic Community
      Evans, to determine whether the breach of that obligation of         and Turkey, on the development of the Association (herein-
      transposition is sufficiently serious.                               after, ‘Decision No 1/80’) to be interpreted as meaning that a
                                                                           Turkish national forfeits the rights acquired under Article 6(1)
                                                                           of Decision No 1/80 if he is held in custody under the
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                 enforcement of a prison sentence for a period of three years?
Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
on the Commission of the European Communities, lodged
       on 21 November 2003 by Icon Institute GmbH
                          (Case C-1/03 SA)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tampereen
                            (2004/C 35/02)                                 käräjäoikeus by order of that Court of 7 November 2003
                                                                           in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against Finnish State
                                                                                and Tarmo Lehtinen
An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                         (Case C-470/03)
21 November 2003 by Icon Institute GmbH, represented by
R. Nathan, with an address for service in Luxembourg. The
applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2004/C 35/04)
Lift the Commission’s immunity so that a garnishee order
relating to the funds it holds on behalf of a judgment debtor,
in this case CESD-Communautaire a.s.b.l., may take effect,
since there is no argument in law or in fact to prevent the
Commission, the garnishee, from properly releasing to the
applicant the funds it holds provisionally.                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tampereen kärä-
                                                                           jäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 7 November 2003,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 11 November 2003, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against
                                                                           Finnish State and Tarmo Lehtinen on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                   (1) Is there a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative
richtshof by order of that Court of 4 september 2003 in                          restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC, or a
    the complaint proceedings brought by Ergül Dogan                             measure which should be abstained from under the
                                                                                second paragraph of Article 10 EC, if an expert official
                           (Case C-383/03)                                       belonging to the State’s health and safety at work
                                                                                organisation who does not have decision-making power,
                                                                                after a market supervision case has been raised but before
                            (2004/C 35/03)                                       the decision in the case, expresses his opinion on the
                                                                                main news programme of a national TV channel and in
                                                                                daily newspapers with wide circulation and also in
                                                                                commercial and labour market associations, in such a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           way that his statements, direct or repeated by others, on
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-                       the hazard to health and even to life of the machinery
of (Administrative Court, Austria) of 4 September 2003,                          manufactured and marketed by a specified manufacturer
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2003, for a                       which is the subject of the market supervision case may
preliminary ruling in the complaint proceedings brought by                       give the machinery negative publicity and affect its
Ergül Dogan on the following question:                                           marketing?


title: Case C-256/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-León (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2010 — David Barcenilla Fernández v Gerardo García, S.L.

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-León (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2010 — David Barcenilla Fernández v Gerardo García, S.L.
   (Case C-256/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-León

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David Barcenilla Fernández

      Defendant: Gerardo García, S.L.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 3, 5(2), 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/10/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dbA (measured without taking account of the effect of hearing protectors) fulfils the obligations to take preventive measures laid down in that Directive in respect of physical working conditions by providing those workers with hearing protectors so that, with the level of attenuation provided by those protectors, the workers’ daily noise exposure level is reduced to less than 80 dbA?

               2.

               Is Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/10/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘programme of technical and/or organisational measures’ which must be adopted by a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dbA (measured without taking account of the effect of hearing protectors) is intended to reduce the noise exposure level to below 85 dbA?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative, does Directive 2003/10/EC preclude a national rule or judicial approach which exempts a company from making a monetary payment, which in principle it must pay to workers affected by daily noise exposure levels of over 85 dbA, because the company has provided those workers with hearing protectors whose attenuating effect causes daily exposure to remain under 80 dbA?

      (1)  Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) (Seventeenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 2003 L 42, p. 38).


title: Case T-426/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark AINHOA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the mark’s distinctive character)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)
   (Case T-426/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark AINHOA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the mark’s distinctive character))
   (2015/C 389/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and M. L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and A. Schifko, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Cosmetica Cabinas SL (El Masnou, Spain) (represented by: L. Montoya Terán and J.-B. Devaureix, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1642/2012-1), relating to revocation proceedings between L’Oréal and Cosmetica Cabinas SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case T-51/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie Battin against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 109/63
      bourgeoises, in so far as it finds that the applicant has         —     The Commission committed an error of fact in taking the
      infringed Article 81(1) of the Treaty;                                  view that the purpose of the agreement was to prevent
                                                                              penetration of the market by foreign brewers and that it
                                                                              significantly affected competition.
—     in any event, annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it
      imposes a fine on the applicant, alternatively, reduce that
      fine substantially;
                                                                        The applicant stresses that the agreement was concluded on
                                                                        account of an abnormal risk situation created by a situation
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            under national law in which fair competition was directly
                                                                        threatened. Consequently, limited cooperation between brew-
                                                                        ers, proportionate to the objective pursued, became the only
                                                                        way of ensuring that the ‘beer clauses’ were safeguarded.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         As regards the amount of the fines, the applicant pleads
                                                                        infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and non-
                                                                        compliance with the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                        reasons.
The present application is directed against the Commission’s
decision establishing the existence of a cartel set up by an
agreement signed on 8 October 1985 between five Luxem-
bourg breweries, including the applicant, with a view to
ensuring observance of exclusivity clauses, known as ‘beer
clauses’, which are characteristic of contracts concluded
between brewers and operators in the hotels/restaurants/cafés
(HORECA) sector, both in Luxembourg and throughout the
Community. The object of that agreement was allegedly to
enable the parties thereto to retain their respective customers         Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie Battin
in the Luxembourg HORECA sector and to prevent foreign                    against the Commission of the European Communities
brewers from penetrating that sector.
                                                                                (Case T-51/02)
In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas in law:                                                                         (2002/C 109/120)
—     The Commission committed an error of law by omitting,                                (Language of the case: French)
      and refusing to consider itself obliged, to take account of
      the economic context of which the agreement formed
      part when carrying out its assessment of all of the clauses
      examined by it, and thus of the purpose of the agreement
      in question.                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie
—     The Commission committed an error in its analysis of              Battin, established at Esch sur Alzette (Luxembourg), represent-
      the scope of the said agreement, by finding that it applied       ed by Alexandre Carnelutti and Marie Santini, lawyers, with an
      in the absence of a supply contract or beer clause, and           address for service in Luxembourg.
      thus committed an error of assessment, inasmuch as it
      based its negative assessment of the agreement on that
      presumed scope.                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     The Commission committed an error of assessment in                —     annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 5 Decem-
      characterising the agreement as an agreement by the                     ber 2001 in Case COMP/37800/F3 — Brasseries Luxem-
      contracting parties to retain their respective customers.               bourgeoises, in so far as it finds that the applicant has
      In actual fact, its central and sole purpose was to                     infringed Article 81(1) of the Treaty;
      ensure observance of the contractual exclusivity agreed
      to between retailers and brewers. The agreement in                —     in any event, annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it
      question was therefore intended solely to constitute a
                                                                              imposes a fine on the applicant, or alternatively reduce
      legitimate instrument of horizontal cooperation aimed at
                                                                              that fine substantially;
      guaranteeing compliance with a decisive element affecting
      the economy, development and fair competition in that
      sector.                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/64               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the decision forming the subject-matter of the dispute disre-
                                                                         gards the principle of proportionality, given the allegedly
                                                                         totally disproportionate nature of the fine at issue, especially
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put             in relation to that imposed on other undertakings in this and
forward in Case T-49/02.                                                 other recent cases, and as regards the taking into account of
                                                                         the legal maximum applicable to the fine itself.
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of
                                                                         non-discrimination.
Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Société Nouvelle
des Couleurs Zinciques S.A. against the Commission of
                  the European Communities
                                                                         Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Bayerische Hypo-
                          (Case T-52/02)                                 und Vereinsbank AG against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                        (2002/C 109/121)
                                                                                (Case T-56/02)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/122)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 February 2002 by Société
Nouvelle des Couleurs Zinciques S.A., established at Bouchain
(France), represented by Robert Saint-Esteben and Hugues                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Calvet, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Bayerische
                                                                         Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, of Munich (Germany), represented
                                                                         by W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and B. Bergmann, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     principally, annul Article 3 of the Commission’s decision          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of 11 December 2001, in so far as that article imposes a
      fine of 1,53 million euros on the applicant;                       —     annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 3693 final of
                                                                               11 December 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/37.919
—     alternatively, reduce the amount of that fine very substan-              (ex 37 391) — Bank charges for currency exchange
      tially;                                                                  within the Euro zone — Germany, in so far as it concerns
                                                                               the applicant;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     alternatively, cancel or, in the further alternative, reduce
                                                                               the fine of 28 000 000 euros imposed on the applicant;
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The decision contested in the present case is the same as that           Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals v Commission.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant are similar to those advanced in Case T-33/02.                 The alleged cartel never existed. It is apparent from the
                                                                         information provided by those who attended the meeting of
                                                                         foreign exchange dealers on 15 October 1997 that, during the
According to the applicant, the arbitrary fixing of a basic              course of that meeting, the discussions concerned technical
amount far in excess of the legal maximum is contrary to                 aspects of inter-bank trading in foreign currencies and structur-
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62, inasmuch as it prevents            ing possibilities regarding pricing in retail foreign exchange
the duration of the infringement and the aggravating and                 trading. The meeting did not involve the conclusion of any
mitigating factors from being taken into account. In addition,           anti-competitive agreement.


title: Case T-496/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/41

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission
   (Case T-496/08)
   (2009/C 32/80)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

               —

               take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Berlin-Schönefeld airport.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are similar to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v Commission.

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


title: Case C-173/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)) — Agrover Srl v Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova (Community Customs Code — Inward processing — Association agreement — Prior exportation of rice to a non-member country bound by a preferential customs agreement — Article 216 of the Customs Code — Subsequent recovery of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)) — Agrover Srl v Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova
   (Case C-173/06) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Inward processing - Association agreement - Prior exportation of rice to a non-member country bound by a preferential customs agreement - Article 216 of the Customs Code - Subsequent recovery of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code)
   (2007/C 315/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrover Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova — Interpretation of Articles 216 and 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Rice exported under the inward processing procedure to a non-member country with which an agreement on preferential tariff treatment is in force — Application of customs duties at the time of importation of the compensating product from a non-member country with which no agreement on preferential tariff treatment is in force
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, applies to the inward processing operations referred to in Article 115(1)(b) of that regulation in which the compensating products have been exported outside the European Community prior to importation of import goods;

               2)

               Where, at the time of discharge of an inward processing operation (suspension system) with equivalent compensation and prior exportation, the competent authorities have not contested, on the basis of Article 216 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, the exemption from import duties of the goods of non-member country origin, they must waive subsequent entry in the accounts of those import duties, pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of that regulation, if three cumulative conditions are fulfilled. First, it is necessary that those duties were not levied as a result of an error on the part of the competent authorities themselves, secondly, that that error was such that it could not reasonably have been detected by a person liable for payment acting in good faith and, finally, that that person complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards the customs declaration. It is for the national court to assess whether that is the case in the circumstances in the main proceedings, on the basis of all the concrete aspects of the case before it, and in particular the evidence adduced for that purpose by the applicant in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case F-95/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2011 — Skareby v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment by a hierarchical superior — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Reasonable period — Point from which time starts to run — Length of time)

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/13

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2011 — Skareby v Commission
   (Case F-95/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment by a hierarchical superior - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Reasonable period - Point from which time starts to run - Length of time)
   2011/C 95/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Carina Skareby (Louvain, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to open an enquiry into the psychological harassment of which the applicant alleges to have been a victim

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 4 March 2009 refusing to open an administrative enquiry into allegations of psychological harassment by one of Ms Skareby’s former hierarchical superiors;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 81.


title: Case C-243/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 27 May 2015 — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 27 May 2015 — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín
   (Case C-243/15)
   (2015/C 279/22)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

      Respondent: Obvodný úrad Trenčín

      In the presence of: Biely potok, a.s.

      Question referred

   Is it possible to guarantee the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the event of a purported breach of the right to a high level of environmental protection established under the conditions laid down by the European Union, mainly by Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, particularly [the right] to help to obtain the public’s opinion on a project which could have a significant impact on special areas of conservation falling within the European ecological ‘Natura 2000’ network, and the rights invoked by the appellant (as a not-for-profit association active in the protection of the environment at national level) under Article 9 of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, within the limits indicated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 8 March 2011 in Case C-240/09 [Lesoochranárske zoskupenie], where the national court terminates the judicial review proceedings in a case concerning the review of a decision refusing to grant [that association] the status of party in administrative proceedings regarding the issuing of a permit, as has happened in the present case, and invites [that association] to lodge an appeal against its having been excluded from those administrative proceedings?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case C-230/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2015 — Brite Strike Technologies Inc. v Brite Strike Technologies SA

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2015 — Brite Strike Technologies Inc. v Brite Strike Technologies SA
   (Case C-230/15)
   (2015/C 254/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brite Strike Technologies Inc.

      Defendant: Brite Strike Technologies SA

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) (BCIP) (whether or not on the grounds set out in paragraphs 28 to 34 of the judgment of the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of 26 November 2013) be considered to be a subsequent convention, with the result that Article 4.6 of the BCIP cannot be considered to be a special rule for the purposes of Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 (1)?
               If that question is answered in the affirmative:

               2)

               Does it follow from Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 that the Belgian, Netherlands and Luxembourg courts all have international jurisdiction to take cognisance of the dispute?

               3)

               If not, how should it be determined, in a case such as the present, whether the Belgian, Netherlands or Luxembourg courts have international jurisdiction? Can Article 4.6 of the BCIP (nonetheless) be applied with a view to (further) determining international jurisdiction?

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


title: Case C-562/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2008 — Müller Fleisch GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2008 — Müller Fleisch GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-562/08)
   (2009/C 69/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Müller Fleisch GmbH

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Question referred
   Is Article 6(1) of, in conjunction with Annex III, Chapter A, Part I to, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 (2) of 22 June 2001, to be interpreted as precluding the expansion of mandatory testing to all bovine animals over 24 months of age, as established by the BSE-Untersuchungsverordnung (German Regulation on BSE testing) of 1 December 2000 (BGBl I, p. 1659), amended by the Regulation of 25 January 2001 (BGBl I, p. 164)?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 of 22 June 2001 amending Annexes III, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards epidemio-surveillance and testing of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 173, p. 12).


title: Case T-48/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — British Airways v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — British Airways v Commission
   (Case T-48/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented initially by K. Lasok QC, R. O’Donoghue, Barrister, and B. Louveaux, Solicitor, and subsequently by R. O’Donoghue, B. Louveaux and J. Turner QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and initially by B. Doherty, and subsequently by A. Bates, Barristers, and represented subsequently by N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by A. Bates)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as, in that decision, the European Commission, first, considered that British Airways plc (i) participated in the refusal to pay commission, (ii) infringed Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport between 22 January 2001 and 1 October 2001, and (iii) participated in infringements of those provisions for freight services performed from Hong Kong (China), Japan, India, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea and Brazil, and, secondly, imposed a fine on it;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of British Airways.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-515/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Finanzgericht Hamburg) in Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions for granting them — Import of the product into the non-member country of destination — Meaning — Customs formalities for release for consumption in the non-member country — Substantial processing or working — Reimportation into the Community — Abuse of law)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 21 July 2005
   in Case C-515/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Finanzgericht Hamburg) in Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Export refunds - Conditions for granting them - Import of the product into the non-member country of destination - Meaning - Customs formalities for release for consumption in the non-member country - Substantial processing or working - Reimportation into the Community - Abuse of law)
   (2005/C 217/28)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-515/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), made by decision of 12 November 2003, received at the Court on 9 December 2003, in the proceedings between Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   The condition for obtaining a differentiated export refund laid down in Article 17(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 of 19 June 1995, as regards in particular the adjustments necessary for the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, namely clearance through customs for release of the product concerned for consumption in the non-member country of destination, is fulfilled where that product, on which import duties were paid in that country, undergoes substantial processing or working there within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, even if the product deriving from such processing or working is then re-exported to the Community, with reimbursement of the duties levied in that country and payment of customs import duties in the Community.
   In those circumstances, reimbursement of the export refund may nevertheless be required if the national court considers that evidence of an abusive practice on the part of the exporter has been produced, in accordance with the rules of national law.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.


title: Case T-74/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  22 February 2006  — Nestlé v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative trade mark including the word element  QUICKY  — Earlier Community, national and international figurative trade marks including the word element  QUICK  — Earlier national and international word marks  QUICK  — Earlier national word marks  QUICKIES  — Likelihood of confusion — Refusal to register — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2006 — Nestlé v OHIM
   (Case T-74/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative trade mark including the word element ‘QUICKY’ - Earlier Community, national and international figurative trade marks including the word element ‘QUICK’ - Earlier national and international word marks ‘QUICK’ - Earlier national word marks ‘QUICKIES’ - Likelihood of confusion - Refusal to register - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 96/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties:

      Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Evrard and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Quick restaurants SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2003 (Case R 922/2001-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé SA and Quick restaurants SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the applicant to pay the costs in their entirety.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-260/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 16 May 2017 — Αnodiki Services ΕPΕ v GNA ‘Εvangelismos — Οfthalmiatrio Athinon — Polikliniki’, GNA ‘Georgios Gennimatas’, Geniko Οnkologiko Nosokomio Κifisias — (GΟΝΚ) ‘Agioi Anargiroi’

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 16 May 2017 — Αnodiki Services ΕPΕ v GNA ‘Εvangelismos — Οfthalmiatrio Athinon — Polikliniki’, GNA ‘Georgios Gennimatas’, Geniko Οnkologiko Nosokomio Κifisias — (GΟΝΚ) ‘Agioi Anargiroi’
   (Case C-260/17)
   (2017/C 239/39)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Αnodiki Ipiresies Diacheirisis Perivallontos, Oikonomias, Dioikisis ΕPΕ (Anodiki Services ΕPΕ)

      Defendants: GNA ‘Εvangelismos — Οfthalmiatrio Athinon — Polikliniki’, GNA ‘Georgios Gennimatas’, Geniko Οnkologiko Nosokomio Κifisias — (GΟΝΚ) ‘Agioi Anargiroi’

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 10(g) of Directive 2014/24, (1) is it sufficient ground, for the classification of a contract as an ‘employment contract’ under that provision, that it constitutes a contract with an employer-employee relationship or is it necessary that that contract have particular characteristics (for example with respect to the nature of the work, the contract terms, the qualifications of candidates, the procedural rules for their selection), so that the selection of each employee should be the result of an individualised judgment and subjective assessment of his or her personal qualities by the employer? Can fixed-term work contracts which are allocated on the basis of objective criteria, such as the length of time the candidate has been unemployed, the candidate’s previous experience or the number of minor children he or she has, as the result of a formal check of supporting documents and a predetermined weighting of the above criteria, such as contracts under Article 63 of Law 4430/2016, be regarded as ‘employment contracts’ within the meaning of Article 10(g) of Directive 2014/24?

               2.

               For the purposes of the provisions of Directive 2014/24 (Articles 1(4), 18(1) and (2), 19(1), 32 and 57, read together with recital (5) thereof), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Articles 49 and 56) and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Articles 16 and 52), and the principles of equal treatment, transparency and proportionality, is it permitted for the public authorities to have recourse to other means, including employment contracts, to the exclusion of public contracts, in order to meet the same public interest requirements, and if so, on what conditions, when that recourse is not part of the recurrent organisation of the public service, but — as in the case of Article 63 of Law 4430/2016 — takes place for a defined period of time and to deal with extraordinary circumstances, as well as for reasons that relate to the effectiveness of competition or the legitimacy of the operations of undertakings who are active in the public procurement market? Can reasons of that kind, as well as circumstances such as the weakness of the unhindered performance of public contracts or the realisation of greater financial benefit compared with a public contract, be regarded as overriding reasons in the public interest, which justify the adoption of a measure which leads to a serious restriction, in extent and duration, on business activity in the field of public procurement?

               3.

               For the purposes of Article 1 of Directive 89/665, (2) as currently in force, does the scope of that provision exclude judicial protection against the decision of a public authority, such as the contested decisions in the main proceedings, with respect to the award of contracts that are treated as not falling within the scope of Directive 2014/24 (for example, as an ‘employment contract’), when an action is brought by an economic operator who would have a legal right to be awarded a comparable public contract and who claims that Directive 2014/24 has been unlawfully not implemented on the view that its non-implementation was permissible?

      (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

      (2)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).


title: Case C-14/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 11 January 2010 — Nickel Institute v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/38

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 11 January 2010 — Nickel Institute v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-14/10)
   2010/C 63/61
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nickel Institute

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Commission Directive 2008/58/EC (1) (the ‘30th ATP Directive’) and/or Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 (2) (the ‘1st ATP Regulation’), to the extent that they purport to classify or reclassify the Nickel Carbonates for the relevant endpoints, invalid in that:

                           (a)

                           the classifications were arrived at without adequate assessment of the intrinsic properties of the Nickel Carbonates in accordance with the criteria and data requirements set out in Annex VI to Directive 67/548/EEC (3) (the ‘Dangerous Substances Directive’);

                           (b)

                           there was no adequate consideration of whether the intrinsic properties of the Nickel Carbonates may present a risk during normal handling and use, as required by sections 1.1 and 1.4 of Annex VI to the Dangerous Substances Directive;

                           (c)

                           the conditions for the use of the procedure in Article 28 of the Dangerous Substances Directive were not made out;

                           (d)

                           the classifications were impermissibly based on a derogation statement prepared for the purposes of a risk assessment carried out by a competent authority pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (4); and/or

                           (e)

                           the reasons for adopting the classifications were not given as required by Article 253 EC?

               2.

               Are Commission Directive 2009/2/EC (5) (the ‘31st ATP Directive’) and or the 1st ATP Regulation invalid, to the extent that they purport to classify or reclassify the Nickel Hydroxides and the Grouped Nickel Substances (together, the ‘Contested Nickel Substances’) in the specified respects, in that:

                           (a)

                           the classifications were arrived at without adequate assessment of the intrinsic properties of the Contested Nickel Substances in accordance with the criteria and data requirements set out in Annex VI to the Dangerous Substances Directive, but rather on the basis of certain read-across methods;

                           (b)

                           there was no adequate consideration of whether the intrinsic properties of the Contested Nickel Substances may present a risk during normal handling and use, as required by sections 1.1 and 1.4 of Annex VI to the Dangerous Substances Directive; and/or

                           (c)

                           the conditions for the use of the procedure in Article 28 of the Dangerous Substances Directive were not made out?

               3.

               Is the 1st ATP Regulation invalid, so far as it concerns the Nickel Carbonates and the Contested Nickel Substances, in that:

                           (a)

                           the conditions for the use of the procedure in Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (6) (the ‘CLP Regulation’) were not made out, and/or

                           (b)

                           the classifications for Table 3.1 of Annex VI to the CLP Regulation were arrived at without adequate assessment of the properties of the Nickel Carbonates and the Contested Nickel Substances in accordance with the criteria and data requirements set out in Annex I to the CLP Regulation, but rather on the application of Annex VII to the CLP Regulation?

      (1)  Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 246, p. 1

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 235, p. 1

      (3)  Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances
   OJ 196, p. 1

      (4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances
   OJ L 84, p. 1

      (5)  Commission Directive 2009/2/EC of 15 January 2009 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 31st time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (Text with EEA relevance)

      OJ L 11, 16.1.2009, p. 6

      (6)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 353, p. 1


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 6 July 1995 in Case C-259/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/44/EEC - Telecommunications - Open network provision to leased lines)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 268/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of open network provision to leased lines, the Hellenic
                       ( Fifth Chamber)                                    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
                                                                           Treaty;
                         of 6 July 1995
in Case C-259/94 : Commission of the European                         2 , the Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic C )
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/44/EEC —                 (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
 Telecommunications — Open network provision to leased
                              lines)
                         ( 95/C 268/01 )
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                  of 13 July 1995
          published in the European Court Reports)                    in Case C-350/92 : Kingdom of Spain v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union i 1 )
In Case C-259/94 :          Commission of the European                 (Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EEC)
Communities ( agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Anders                No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a
Christian Jessen ) v. Hellenic Republic ( agents : Panagiotis         supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
Mylonopoulos and Ioanna Kiki ) — application for a                                                 products)
declaration that, by omitting to bring into force and, in the                                   ( 95/C 268/02 )
alternative, to notify to the Commission within the period
prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply in full with Council                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of
open network provision to leased lines ( OJ No L 165 , p. 27),        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               published in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
C. Gulmann , President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ) and L.            In Case C-350/92 : Kingdom of Spain ( agents : Alberto
Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; R. Grass,              Navarro Gonzalez and Antonio Hierro Hernandez-Mora ,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 1995 , in which it          subsequently replaced by Gloria Calvo Diaz ) supported by
rules :                                                               the Hellenic Republic ( agents : Vassileios Kontolaimos and
                                                                      Maria Basdeki, subsequently replaced by Vassileia Pelekou )
                                                                      v . Council of the European Union ( agents: Antonio
1 , by omitting to bring into force within the period                 Sacchettini , Sophia Kyriacopoulou and Ignacio Díez Parra )
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative              supported by the French Republic ( agents : Philippe
     provisions necessary to comply in full with Council              Pouzoulet and Hélène Duchêne ), and by the Commission of
     Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application            the European Communities ( agents: Jean Amphoux,


title: Case F-90/14: Action brought on 4 September 2014  — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/39

         Action brought on 4 September 2014 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-90/14)
   (2014/C 448/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Hans-Robert Ilting, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application, first, to set aside the decision not to grant the applicant the child allowance from 1 September 2013 because his child is no longer receives ‘educational or vocational training’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of officials and, second, to oblige his employer to continue to grant him that allowance and to reimburse him all medical expenses for his daughter retroactively from 1 September 2013.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision, reference HR.D.2/AS/ac/Ares(2014) of 5 June 2014 relating to his complaint, registered on 12 February 2014 with HR.D.2, ‘Appeals and case monitoring’, under reference no R/227/14;

               —

               oblige the appointing authority to recognise his daughter, continuously and retroactively from 1 September 2013, as being a dependent child in education and for this reason to continue to grant the child allowance for his daughter continuously and retroactively from 1 September 2013 and to continue to provide, continuously and retroactively from 1 September 2013, his daughter’s medical expenses.


title: Case C-41/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 86/378/EEC and 96/97/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-41/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 86/378/EEC and 96/97/EC - Equal treatment for men and women - Incomplete transposition)
   (2009/C 19/14)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (OJ 1986 L 225, p. 40) and Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (OJ 1997 L 46, p. 20)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes and Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives and Article 54 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-387/06: Action brought on 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/27

         Action brought on 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-387/06)
   (2006/C 294/46)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. Huttunen and M. Shotter, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by restricting in Paragraph 43 of the Viestintämarkkinalaki (Communications Market Law) the powers of the national regulatory authority to regulate the termination of calls from a fixed network to a mobile network, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (1) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (2);

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 24 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.


title: Case F-117/15: Action brought on 18 August 2015 — ZZ v F4E

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/37

         Action brought on 18 August 2015 — ZZ v F4E
   (Case F-117/15)
   (2015/C 328/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Asmaryan Degtyareva, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (F4E)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annul and declare void the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy not to place the applicant on the reserve list of selection procedure F4E/CA/STIFGIV/2015/001 and annul the appointments of the candidates selected for the vacant posts.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               declare void selection procedure F4E/CA/STIFGIV/2015/001 of Fusion for Energy for the posts of Cost control support officer;

               —

               declare void the reserve list drawn up by the defendant as a result of that selection procedure;

               —

               declare void the appointment of the candidates selected for the vacant posts and the taking of office by the candidates proposed by the Selection Committee and selected by the Director of Fusion for Energy;

               —

               declare that the defendant should organise a new selection procedure for candidates for the vacant posts of Cost control support officer;

               —

               declare that the new selection procedure for Cost control support officers should include a written test and be organised immediately in order to select new candidates;

               —

               declare unfair and void the defendant’s failure to organise a written test, contrary to what was indicated in the Guide for Applicants;

               —

               order any measures that the Tribunal deems appropriate in order to repeat the selection procedure in accordance with the rules established in the Vacancy Notice published on 5 February 2015 and those set out in the Guide for Applicants contained in that notice, the organisation of an oral test and a written test being obligatory;

               —

               order the defendant, Fusion for Energy, to pay the costs of the present proceedings.