title: Case T-336/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon)
   (Case T-336/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 46/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2008 (Case R 1332/2005-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case F-88/09 and F-48/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Z v Court of Justice (Civil service — Officials — Reassignment — Interests of the service — General rule of correspondence between the grade and the post — Rights of the defence — Psychological harassment — Article 12 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of care — Principle of sound administration — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Written warning — Rights of the defence and principle of the right to be heard)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/29

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Z v Court of Justice
   (Case F-88/09 and F-48/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Reassignment - Interests of the service - General rule of correspondence between the grade and the post - Rights of the defence - Psychological harassment - Article 12 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Principle of sound administration - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Written warning - Rights of the defence and principle of the right to be heard)
   2013/C 38/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: initially by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers, subsequently by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant in the interest of the service to another directorate and an order that the defendant pay compensation for non-material loss.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10;

               2.

               Orders Z to bear three-quarters of his own costs in Case F-88/09 and to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case F-48/10;

               3.

               Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay a quarter of those incurred by Z in Case F-88/09.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 80.


title: Case T-174/09: Action brought on 27 April 2009 — Complejo Agrícola v Commission

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/48

         Action brought on 27 April 2009 — Complejo Agrícola v Commission
   (Case T-174/09)
   2009/C 153/91
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Complejo Agrícola, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Menéndez Menéndez and G. Yanguas Montero, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               annul in part Article 1 of, in conjunction with Annex 1 to, Commission Decision 2009/95/EC of 12 December 2008, (1) in so far as they concern the declaration as a site of Community importance of “Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz” Code ES6120015 (“SCI Acebuchales”) and restore fully the exercise of COMPLEJO AGRÍCOLA's right of ownership over that part of its farm which does not have sufficient environmental value for it to be declared a site of Community importance (“SCI”);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision challenged in the present proceedings adopts the second updated list of SICs for the Mediterranean biogeographical region in accordance with Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. (2) The SCIs which were designated or retained in the contested decision included the SCI Acebuchales with an area of 26 475,31 hectares and with the following coordinates: longitude 5° 57′ 4″ W and latitude 36° 24′ 2″.
   In accordance with the contested decision, a surface area of 1 759 hectares of the farm of which the applicant is the owner (‘the farm’) is included in the SCI Acebuchales. Since the declaration of Acebuchales as an SCI, the legal protection regime laid down in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43 has applied automatically to that area of land. That regime restricts the applicant’s ability to use and to enjoy the part of the farm included in SCI Acebuchales.
   The applicant makes the following submissions in support of its claim:

               —

               in the determination of the perimeter of SCI Acebuchales, which affects the farm, the Commission exceeded its powers as a consequence of its erroneous application of the criteria established in Annexes I, II and III to Directive 92/43.
               As established in the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out by the environmental consultants Istmo ’94, of the 1 759 hectares of the farm affected by SCI Acebuchales, 877 hectares do not satisfy the environmental conditions required by Directive 92/43 for them to be included in an SCI area. The Commission's erroneous application of the criteria of Annex III to Directive 92/43 has resulted in a large tract of land owned by the applicant lacking in environmental value being regarded as an SCI area, which, moreover, entails an infringement of the principles of proportionality and legality which shape Community law.

               —

               there has been an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the ability to use and enjoy inherent in the applicant’s right of ownership over those areas of the farm affected by SCI Acebuchales which are lacking in environmental value.

               —

               the applicant had no opportunity to participate in the procedure for declaring Acebuchales to be an SCI, nor even to learn of its existence, before the publication of the contested decision: that has resulted in an infringement of the principles of audi alteram partem and legal certainty.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 12 December 2008 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (notified under document number C(2008) 8049) (OJ 2009 L 43, p. 393).

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case C-165/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig
   (Case C-165/13)
   2013/C 207/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stanislav Gross

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

      Question referred

   Does the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, notwithstanding its schematic connection with Article 7(3) of that directive, preclude legislation of a Member State under which a person who, for commercial purposes, holds products subject to excise duty which have been released for consumption in another Member State is not liable for duty in circumstances where he did not acquire those products from another person until after the entry process had been completed?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.


title: Case T-532/08: Order of the General Court of 7 September 2010 — Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta and Umicore v Commission (Actions for annulment — Environment and protection of human health — Classification, packaging and labelling of certain nickel carbonate compounds as dangerous substances — Directive 2008/58/EC — Directive 67/548/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Amendment of form of order sought — Temporal application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/29

         Order of the General Court of 7 September 2010 — Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta and Umicore v Commission
   (Case T-532/08) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Classification, packaging and labelling of certain nickel carbonate compounds as dangerous substances - Directive 2008/58/EC - Directive 67/548/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Amendment of form of order sought - Temporal application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 301/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy (Espoo, Finland) and Umicore SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Nickel Institute (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, D. Anderson QC, S. Kinsella and H. Pearson, Solicitors)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of 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 (OJ 2008 L 246, p. 1) and of 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 (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1), in so far as they amend the classification of certain nickel carbonate compounds

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy and Umicore SA/NV are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Denmark and the Nickel Institute are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-275/04: Action brought on 29 June 2004 against the Kingdom of Belgium by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/15

         Action brought on 29 June 2004 against the Kingdom of Belgium by the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-275/04)
   (2004/C 217/28)
   An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Giolito and G. Wilms, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Kingdom of Belgium.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that:

                           —

                           by failing to enter in the accounts referred to in Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation No 1150/2000 (1) the entitlements established within the prescribed periods;
                           and

                           —

                           by failing to check whether since 1 January 1995 other delays in making own resources available occurred following a late entry in the accounts referred to in Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation No 1150/2000, by destroying the records covering that period and by failing to communicate them to the Commission in order to enable it to calculate the overdue interest owing pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 (2) due to a delay in making own resources available;

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6(3), 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (3), which, as from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, whose aim is identical to Article 10 of the EC Treaty.

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and principal arguments:
   The Kingdom of Belgium's disregard of the Community provisions governing accounting entries has given rise to delays in making own resources available. Member States are required to enter the amounts of established, guaranteed and uncontested entitlements in the accounts referred to in Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation No 1150/2000 (‘A Accounts’), whereas the accounts referred to in Article 6(3)(b) (‘B Accounts’) are reserved exclusively for established entitlements which have not yet been collected and for which no security has been provided. The amounts covered by a guarantee issued under the external transit system procedure (T1, TIR carnets, ATA carnets, etc.) may be entered in the separate accounts only if they have been duly contested, which implies inter alia that time-limits have been complied with and the action has been commenced in writing.
   The Commission cannot accept the justifications put forward by Belgium in support of the anomalies and delayed entries.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22.05.2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29.05.1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ 2000 L 293, p. 9.


title: Case T-16/11: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Netherlands v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch — Rights of the defence)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-16/11) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch - Rights of the defence))
   2014/C 282/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree, M. Noort, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, F. Wilman and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008 in the total amount of EUR 2 8 9 47  149.31.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-517/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 15 December 2004 in Visserijbedrijf D.J. Koornstra Zn. V.o.f. v Productschap Vis

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 15 December 2004 in Visserijbedrijf D.J. Koornstra Zn. V.o.f. v Productschap Vis
   (Case C-517/04)
   (2005/C 69/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands) of 15 December 2004 received at the Court Registry on 20 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Visserijbedrijf D.J. Koornstra Zn. V.o.f. and Productschap Vis (Fish Marketing Board) on the following questions:

               1.

               Is a charge, such as that in the present proceedings, levied on an operator in a Member State for landing shrimp with a fishing vessel registered in that Member State and used to finance shrimp sieves and peelers in that Member State consistent with Community law and, in particular, with Articles 25 and 90 EC, if the charge is also payable on shrimp landed by such an operator elsewhere in the Community?

               2.

               Is the answer to this question affected by any of the following:

                           a.

                           where the shrimps are caught;

                           b.

                           whether, after being landed elsewhere in the Community, the shrimps are transported to the Member State in which the fishing vessel is registered;

                           c.

                           whether, after the shrimps have been landed elsewhere in the Community, payment for sieving and peeling is made in that place also?


title: Case C-91/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane
   (Case C-91/15)
   (2015/C 146/33)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kawasaki Motors Europe NV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

      Question referred

   Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 (1) of 3 November 2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 290, p. 56.


title: Case C-290/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel (Article 59 of the EEC Treaty (later Article 59 of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EEC Treaty (later Article 60 of the EC Treaty, now Article 50 EC) — Tax legislation — Income tax — Provision of services by a non-resident in the context of artistic performances — Principle of retention of tax at source — Provider of services not possessing the nationality of a Member State)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel
   (Case C-290/04) (1)

   (Article 59 of the EEC Treaty (later Article 59 of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EEC Treaty (later Article 60 of the EC Treaty, now Article 50 EC) - Tax legislation - Income tax - Provision of services by a non-resident in the context of artistic performances - Principle of retention of tax at source - Provider of services not possessing the nationality of a Member State)
   (2006/C 294/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — National income tax legislation under which a resident recipient of a service is obliged to deduct tax on remuneration paid to a non-resident provider of services
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding

                           —

                           national legislation under which a procedure of retention of tax at source is applied to payments made to providers of services not resident in the Member State in which the services are provided, whereas payments made to providers of services resident in that Member State are not subject to such a retention;

                           —

                           national legislation under which liability is incurred by a recipient of services who has failed to make the retention at source that he was required to make.

               2)

               Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as

                           —

                           precluding national legislation which does not allow a recipient of services who is the debtor of the payment made to a non-resident provider of services to deduct, when making the retention of tax at source, the business expenses which that service provider has reported to him and which are directly linked to his activity in the Member State in which the services are provided, whereas a provider of services residing in that State is taxable only on his net income, that is, the income received after deduction of business expense;

                           —

                           not precluding national legislation under which only the business expenses directly linked to the activity that generated the taxable income in the Member State in which the service is provided, which the service provider established in another Member State has reported to the payment debtor, are deducted in the procedure for retention at source, and expenses that are not directly linked to that economic activity can be taken into account if appropriate in a subsequent refund procedure;

                           —

                           not precluding a rule that the tax exemption granted under the Convention of 16 June 1959 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation in the area of income, capital, and various other taxes and for regulating other tax matters, to a non-resident provider of services who has carried on activity in Germany can be taken into account by the payment debtor in the procedure for retention of tax at source, or in a subsequent procedure for exemption or refund, or in proceedings for liability brought against him, only if a certificate of exemption stating that the conditions laid down to that end by that convention are satisfied is issued by the competent tax authority.

               3)

               Article 59 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as not being applicable in favour of a provider of services who is a national of a non-member country.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.


title: Case T-678/13: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — AEMN v Parliament

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/65

         Order of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — AEMN v Parliament
   (Case T-678/13) (1)

   2014/C 409/87
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-144/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 166/ 11
Duties Tribunal , Manchester, of 2 April 1997, which was                        81/851/EEC (2 ) on the approximation of provisions
received at the Court Registry on 14 April 1997, for a                          laid down by law, regulation or administrative action
preliminary ruling in the Case of Norbury Developments                          relating to veterinary medicinal products and laying
Ltd against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on                         down additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary
the following question :                                                        medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
In relation to a supply of land which has not been built on
but on which at the time of supply the erection of                       — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
buildings has been legally authorized by a permission
granted in accordance with the law of the Member State
and which the tribunal has held to be building land                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
is the United Kingdom entitled to exempt the supply
under Article 28 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth Directive (*)?                 The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
Notwithstanding that:                                                    paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty is such as to
                                                                         oblige Member States to whom directives are addressed to
( a ) the taxation of supplies of land, including supplies of            adopt the measures necessary to comply with such
       land which is indisputably building land has altered              directives within the time-limit prescribed therein . The
       since the United Kingdom adopted the Sixth Directive              time-limit in question expired on 31 December 1993 but
       on 17 May 1977, in particular since the enactment of              France has not adopted the necessary measures .
       the Finance Act 1989 , which introduced the election
       to waive VAT exemption in respect of certain such                 ( ] ) OJ No L 297, 1992 , p . 12 .
       supplies; and                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 1981 , p . 1 .
( b ) the taxation of supplies of land which is indisputably
       building land has altered since the United Kingdom
       adopted the Sixth Directive on 17 May 1977, in
       particular since the enactment of the Finance Act 1989
       which required certain such supplies which were                   Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of
       previously exempt to be standard-rated as civil                   the European Communities against the Kingdom of
       engineering works and noting that the supply would                                                 Belgium
       have been exempt had the supply taken place before                                           ( Case C-145 /97 )
       17 May 1977 under item 1 of group 1 of Schedule 5
       to the Finance Act 1972 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/22 )
(') Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the            An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
      uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                         on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
                                                                         Principal Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a
                                                                         national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
   the European Communities against the French Republic
                           ( Case C-144/97 )                             The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                         that the Court should :
                             ( 97/C 166/21 )
                                                                         — declare that, by adopting the Decree of 9 November
An action against the French Republic was brought before                        1993 concerning standards of quality and safety
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             in      furnished       accommodation     without    first
 16 April 1997 by the Commission of the European                                communicating it to the Commission in draft form,
Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,                              the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Principal Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a                           obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 83/
national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,                       189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                for the provision of information in the field of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                            technical standards and regulations ('),
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       and administrative measures necessary in order to                  In the Commission's view, the decree in issue contains —
       comply with Council Directive 92/74/EEC of                         for example, in Article 12 ( relating to electrical
       22 September 1992 ( ] ) widening the scope of Directive            equipment), Article 13 ( relating to gas installations ) and


title: Case C-268/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Plovdivski rayonen (Bulgaria) sad lodged on 16 July 2009 — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Plovdivski rayonen (Bulgaria) sad lodged on 16 July 2009 — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv
   (Case C-268/09)
   2009/C 220/53
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Plovdivski rayonen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vasil Ivanov Georgiev

      Defendant: Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation preclude the application of a national Law which does not permit the conclusion of employment contracts of indefinite duration with professors who have reached the age of 65? In this context and, more precisely, taking Article 6(1) of the directive into consideration, are the measures in Article 7(1)(6) of the Law on Protection against Discrimination, which introduce age-limits for employment in specific posts, objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and proportionate, bearing in mind that the directive has been fully transposed into Bulgarian law?

               2.

               Do the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation preclude the application of a national Law under which professors who have reached the age of 68 are compulsorily retired? In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the present case and if it is found that a conflict exists between the provisions of the directive and the relevant national legislation which transposed the directive, is it possible that the interpretation of the provisions of Community law results in the national legislation not being applied?

               3.

               Does national law establish the reaching of the specified age as the sole condition for the termination of the employment relationship of indefinite duration and for the possibility that the relationship can be continued as a fixed-term employment relationship between the same worker and employer for the same post? Does national law establish a maximum duration and a maximum number of extensions of the fixed-term employment relationship with the same employer after the contract of indefinite duration has been converted into a fixed-term contract, beyond which a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties is not possible?


title: Case C-186/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 April 2017 — flightright GmbH v Iberia Express SA

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 April 2017 — flightright GmbH v Iberia Express SA
   (Case C-186/17)
   (2017/C 221/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: flightright GmbH

      Defendant: Iberia Express SA

      Question referred

   Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist in the case where a passenger does not catch a directly connecting flight as a result of a relatively minor delay in arrival, with the result that there is a delay in arrival at the final destination of three hours or more, but the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the booking was made through a tour operator who carried out the booking of the entire flight journey via another air carrier?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-19/92: Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc v. Commission of the European Communities (Selective distribution system - Luxury cosmetic products)

text:
8 . 2 . 97             I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 40/ 17
( Netherlands ), represented initially by Martijn van Empel ,            Parfumerie, established in Paris, represented by Robert
subsequently by Onno W. Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar,                   Collin, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10
Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1 Rue Goethe — application                   Rue Mathias Hardt, Comité de Liaison des Syndicats Eu
for the partial annulment of Commission Decision                         ropéens de l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des Cosmétiques,
91 /50/EEC of 16 January 1991 relating to a proceeding                   established in Brussels, represented by Stephen Kon , Solici
under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [ IV/32.732 —                         tor, and Melanie Thill-Tayara , of the Paris Bar, with an
IJsselcentrale { IJC ) and Others , OJ No L 28 , 2 . 2 . 1991 ,          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Wi
p. 32 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber, Extended                           nandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich , and Federa
Composition ), composed of: H. Kirschner, President, B.                  tion Européenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants , established in
Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A.                      Paris , represented by Rolland Verniau , of the Lyon Bar,
Potocki , Judges; Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez, gave a                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
judgment on 12 December 1996 , the operative part of                     Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12 Avenue de la Porte-Neuve
which is as follows :                                                    — application for annulment of Commission Decision
                                                                         92/33/EEC of 16 December 1991 relating to a proceeding
1 . Commission Decision 91 /50/EEC of 16 January 1991                    under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/33.242 — Yves
      relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC               Saint Laurent Parfums ) ( OJ No L 12 , 18 . 1 . 1992 , p. 24 )
       Treaty (JV/32.732 — IJsselcentrale (1JC) and Others)              — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended
      is annulled in so far as it rejects the applicants '               Composition ), composed of H. Kirschner, President, and
       complaint with regard to the import restrictions                  B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A.
      applicable      during       the    period     before     the      Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
       Elektriciteitswet 1989 entered into force.                        the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in
                                                                         which it :
2 . The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and
      jointly and severally to pay half of the costs incurred            1 . annuls        Commission Decision         92/33/EEC of
       by the Commission and the intervener before the                         16 December 1991 relating to a proceeding under
      judgment of the Court of First Instance of                              Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.242 — Yves Saint
       18 November 1992 , the defendant and the intervener                     Laurent Parfums) in so far as it decides that a
       each being ordered to bear the other half of their                     provision allowing Yves Saint Laurent to treat
       costs .                                                                retailers ' applications less favourably merely because
                                                                              perfumery represents a minority of their activities is
3 . The Commission is ordered to pay the costs incurred                       not covered by Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty;
       after the judgment of the Court of Justice, with the
       exception of the intervener s costs, which shall be               2 . dismisses the remainder of the action;
       borne by the intervener.
                                                                         3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the
 (') OJ No C 101 , 18 . 4 . 1991 .                                             Commission and of the intervener Yves Saint Laurent
                                                                               Parfums SA , and to bear its own costs;
                                                                         4 , orders each of the other interveners , the Fédération
                                                                               des Industries de la Parfumerie, the Comité de Liaison
                                                                               des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la Parfume
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     rie et des Cosmétiques and the Fédération Européenne
                        of 12 December 1996                                    des Parfumeurs Détaillants, to bear its own costs.
 in Case T-19/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc v.
          Commission of the European Communities (')                      (') OJ No C 90 , 10 . 4 . 1992 .
 (Selective     distribution     system —      Luxury     cosmetic
                                products)
                             ( 97/C 40/43 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
 In Case T-19/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc,
 established in Paris, represented by Mario Amadio and                    in Case T-87/92 : BVBA Kruidvat v. Commission of the
  Gilbert Parléani, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                                     European Communities (')
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Hoss,                  (Selective     distribution      system —  Luxury     cosmetic
  15 Cote d'Eich , against Commission of the European                                                    products)
  Communities ( Agents : initially Bernd Langeheine, then
  Berend Jan Drijber and Hervé Lehman ), supported by                                                 ( 97/C 40/44 )
  Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA, established in Neuilly-sur-
  Seine, France , represented by Dominique Voillemot and                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
  Arnaud Michel , of the Paris Bar, with an address for
  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                        In Case T-87/92 : BVBA Kruidvat, established in Antwerp,
  Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe, Federation des Industries de la                 Belgium, represented by Onno Willem Brouwer, of the


title: Case T-165/05: Action brought on 21 April 2005 by Neophytos Neophytou against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/29

         Action brought on 21 April 2005 by Neophytos Neophytou against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-165/05)
   (2005/C 155/55)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 2005 by Neophytos Neophytou, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by S. Pappas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               cancel the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 not to include his name in the reserve list for recruitment of assistant administrators for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the composition of the selection board infringed the principle of non-discrimination, that the final selection of the candidates did not comply with the requirements laid down in the notice of competition and that the selection board exceeded the limit of its discretionary powers by accepting candidates who held a degree in law for a competition in the field of public administration. The applicant also submits that the rejection of his complaint is vitiated by a lack of reasoning.


title: Case C-541/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that court of 18 November 2003 in the case of Lambert Roodbeen against the Republic of Austria

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


title: Case T-665/14 P: Order of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Staff Committee of the Commission — Revocation by the Luxembourg local section of one of its members appointed to the central staff committee — Decision refusing to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation decision — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Non respect of the pre-litigation procedure — Measure adversely affecting a person — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/19

         Order of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission
   (Case T-665/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Staff Committee of the Commission - Revocation by the Luxembourg local section of one of its members appointed to the central staff committee - Decision refusing to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation decision - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Non respect of the pre-litigation procedure - Measure adversely affecting a person - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 221/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Robert Klar (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and J. Currall, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2014 in Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission (F-114/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:192), seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Robert Klar and Mr Francisco Fernandez Fernandez are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-187/06: Order of the President of the Court of 26 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-187/06) (1)

   (2009/C 6/31)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2008.


title: Case T-162/09: Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Würth and Fasteners (Shenyang) v Council

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/13

         Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Würth and Fasteners (Shenyang) v Council
   (Case T-162/09)
   2009/C 167/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Adolf Würth GmbH & Co KG (Künzelsau, Germany) and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co Ltd (Shenyang, China) (represented by: M. Karl and M. Mayer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China; or alternatively

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it individually affects the applicants; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On the Commission’s proposal, on 26 January 2009 the Council issued, on the basis of the so-called basic anti-dumping regulation, (1) Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (2).
   The applicants claim to be affected by the anti-dumping duties imposed by that regulation and request (in this respect) the annulment of the regulation.
   In support of their action, the applicants refer in the first plea to alleged irregularities in the anti-dumping procedure.
   In the second to sixth pleas the applicants complain of an infringement of higher-ranking Community law:

               —

               The Commission did not carefully and impartially investigate all the relevant aspects of the individual case and did not sufficiently investigate the facts of the case, which lead to an infringement of the duty to state reasons in Article 253 EC.

               —

               The normal value used in Regulation No 91/2009 was, in breach of Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation No 384/96, investigated in a legally defective manner.

               —

               The thresholds for the admissibility of an anti-dumping procedure under Article 5(4), subparagraph 3, were not reached.

               —

               The concept ‘like product’ in Article 1(4) of Regulation No 384/96 was stretched in the contested regulation, as the goods concerned produced in the People’s Republic of China and the goods manufactured in the Community are not comparable and are not interchangeable.

               —

               There is no injury to Community industry which is necessary for the establishment of anti-dumping duties under Article 1(1) and Article 3 of Regulation No 384/96.

         The applicants claim finally in the seventh plea a misuse of powers on the part of the Community institutions during the examination of the criteria of injury, causality and Community interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1), last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 340, p. 17).


title: Case F-145/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Pascual-García v Commission (Staff case — Open competition — Conditions of eligibility — Required professional experience — Refusal to recruit a candidate on the reserve list — Discretion of selection board and appointing authority)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/71

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Pascual-García v Commission
   (Case F-145/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Open competition - Conditions of eligibility - Required professional experience - Refusal to recruit a candidate on the reserve list - Discretion of selection board and appointing authority)
   (2008/C 209/129)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Cesar Pascual-García (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of 7 April 2006 of the Director General of the Joint Research Centre of the Commission refusing to take the applicant's application into consideration for the post referred to in vacancy notice COM/2005/2969 — B/3/B*11 — IHCP — Ispra, and adding a comment in the reserve list of competition EPSO/B/23/04, informing the Commission's departments that the applicant does not meet the conditions of eligibility for that competition
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of 7 April 2006 of the Director General of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission of the European Communities refusing to take the application of Mr Pascual-García into consideration for vacancy notice COM/2005/2969, and adding a comment in the reserve list of the open competition EPSO/B/23/04, informing the departments that the applicant did not meet the conditions of eligibility for that competition;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 10.3.2007, p. 42


title: Case T-100/11: Action brought on 17 February 2011 — MSE Pharmazeutika v OHIM — Merck Sharp & Dohme (SINAMIT)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/28

         Action brought on 17 February 2011 — MSE Pharmazeutika v OHIM — Merck Sharp & Dohme (SINAMIT)
   (Case T-100/11)
   2011/C 145/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MSE Pharmazeutika GmbH (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (New Jersey, USA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2010 in case R 724/2010-1;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 March 2010, which upheld opposition No B 1441684.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SINAMIT’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 951596

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Austrian trade mark registration No 57446 of the word mark ‘SINEMET’, for goods in class 5; Benelux trade mark registration No 320194 of the word mark ‘SINEMET’, for goods in class 5; Danish trade mark registration No VR197302373 of the word mark ‘SINEMET’, for goods in class 5; Finish trade mark registration No 49091 of the word mark ‘SINEMET’, for goods in class 5; Greek trade mark registration No 34959 of the word mark SINEMET, for goods in class 5; Hungarian trade mark registration No 116223 of the word mark ‘SINEMET’, for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M18257 of the word mark ‘SINEMET’, for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 12963 of the word mark ‘SINEMET’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks, assuming a high similarity of the marks on the one side and an identity and similarity of the goods covered by the trademarks on the other side.


title: Case F-3/09: Action brought on 16 January 2009 — Ridolfi v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/53

         Action brought on 16 January 2009 — Ridolfi v Commission
   (Case F-3/09)
   (2009/C 55/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Roberto Ridolfi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision to refuse the applicant entitlement to reuse and retain the education allowance together with interest in respect of his two eldest children.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2008 refusing the applicant entitlement to reuse and retain the education allowances together with interest in respect of his two eldest children;

               —

               annul all of the Commission's decisions taken to implement the aforementioned decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2008, in particular the note of the Head of Unit of the External Service Directorate of DG RELEX, of 12 December 2008‘Rights and Obligations of Officials and Members of the Contract Staff’, recovering the sum of EUR 1 295,38;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the Commission's express decision of 6 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) on 5 June 2008;

               —

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


title: Case T-138/09: Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (RIOJAVINA)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/40

         Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (RIOJAVINA)
   (Case T-138/09)
   2009/C 153/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Félix Muñoz Arraiza (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (Logroño, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 29 January 2009 in Case R 721/2008-2, allowing the application for registration of “RIOJAVINA” (word mark) as a Community trade mark in classes 29, 30 and 35;

               —

               make an express order as to costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Félix Muñoz Arraiza

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark “RIOJAVINA” (Application No 4 121 621) for goods and services in classes 29, 30 and 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Various registered marks, including in particular the Community figurative mark “RIOJA” (No 226 118) for goods in class 33 and the International figurative mark “RIOJA” (No 655 291) for goods in class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial acceptance of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-689/14 P: Appeal brought on 12 September 2014 by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 July 2014 in Case F-63/13 Psarras v ENISA

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/36

         Appeal brought on 12 September 2014 by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 July 2014 in Case F-63/13 Psarras v ENISA

   (Case T-689/14 P)
   (2014/C 431/59)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (represented by P. Empadinhas and by C. Meidanis, lawyer)

      Other party to the appeal: Aristides Psarras (Heraklion, Greece)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of 2 July 2014 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-63/13;

               —

               reject in their entirety the claims made by the applicant at first instance in Case F-63/13; and

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay all the legal costs, both before the Civil Service Tribunal and before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal the appellant relies on five grounds.

               1.

               The first ground of appeal claims a distortion of the facts as regards the events of 4 May 2012 and the subsequent period, and an error of law as regards Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Union (together with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union).

               2.

               The second ground of appeal claims an error of law, with regard to Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, in so far as it was held that a ruling that that provision has been infringed entails ipso jure and automatically the annulment of the contested decision, disregarding the case-law in accordance with which the applicant should additionally have proved that, in the absence of that infringement, the content of the contested decision would have been different, and on the basis of the new interpretation of the provision in the ruling that the previous case-law ‘renders [the provision] wholly meaningless’.

               3.

               The third ground of appeal claims a breach of the obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to answer the defendant’s objections of inadmissibility and an insufficient statement of reasons and in addition breach of the obligation to uphold the preliminary procedure for an application for compensation.

               4.

               The fourth ground of appeal claims disregard of the case-law to the effect that the annulment of the contested decision can itself constitute adequate compensation, insufficient statement of reasons, the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled ultra vires and manifest error of assessment

               5.

               The fifth ground of appeal claims a suspected lack of impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2001 in Case C-191/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kvaerner plc v Staatssecretaris van Financïen (Non-life insurance — Directive 88/357/EEC — Definition of establishment and the State where the risk is situated)

text:
28.7.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 212/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 June 2001
                          of 14 June 2001
in Case C-178/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-191/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the Bezirksgericht Bregenz), concerning the application                      from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kvaerner plc v
      for land registration made by Doris Salzmann (1)                                      Staatssecretaris van Financïen (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration of real
property transactions in the land register — Administrative                  (Non-life insurance — Directive 88/357/EEC — Definition
 not judicial proceeding — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                  of establishment and the State where the risk is situated)
                          (2001/C 212/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/02)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-178/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bezirksgericht                                      in the European Court Reports)
(District Court) Bregenz (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in
the context of examination of an application for land regis-
tration made by Doris Slazmann — on the interpretation of                    In Case C-191/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) and of                      EC) from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
point 1(e) of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Economic Area — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                      court between Kvaerner plc and Staatssecretaris van Financïen
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,                            — on the interpretation of Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of the
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha                   Second Council Directive (88/357/EEC) of 22 June 1988
Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                          on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance
a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it has ruled:                           and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise
                                                                             of freedom to provide services and amending Directive
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction         73/239/EEC (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:
to answer the questions raised by the Bezirksgericht Bregenz in its          C. Gulmann, President of the Third and Sixth Chambers, acting
order of 29 December 1998.                                                   for the President, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
                                                                             and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                             J.P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
                                                                             and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                             D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 212/2                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.7.2001
1.    Articles 2(c) and (d), final indent, and 3 of the Second Council         (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam, and, subsequently,
      Directive (88/357/EEC) of 22 June 1988 on the coordination               J.-F. Dobelle and S. Seam), supported by United Kingdom of
      of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to           Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted
      direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down               by G. Barling QC) — application for a declaration that, by
      provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide    applying to vehicles used by taxable persons carrying on the
      services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC permit a Member               activity of driving instructors the condition that, in order for
      State to levy insurance tax on a legal person established in             such persons to be able to exercise their right to deduct the
      another Member State in respect of premiums which that legal             value added tax charged on the initial acquisition of those
      person has paid to an insurer, also established in other Member          vehicles, they must be used exclusively for that activity, the
      State, to cover the business risks of its subsidiary or sub-             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      subsidiary established in the Member State making the levy. It           Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
      makes no difference if the legal person which paid the premiums          17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
      and the legal person whose business risks are covered are two            States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
      companies in the same group linked by a relationship other               added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
      than that of parent and subsidiary company.                              in the version resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of
                                                                               10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/388 and introducing
2.    In interpreting ‘policy-holder’ or ‘Member State in which the            new simplification measures with regard to value added tax —
      risk is situated’ for the purposes of Article 2(d), final indent, of     scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
      Directive 88/357, the way in which the premium relating to               implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth
      the risk insured is invoiced or paid within a group of companies         Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
      is immaterial.                                                           Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
                                                                               and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June
                                                                               2001, in which it:
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                               1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                               2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs;
                                                                               3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 14 June 2001                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    (Third Chamber)
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                of 14 June 2001
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                         in Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive —                                               ties v Republic of Austria (1)
Deductibility of tax on the acquisition of vehicles used to
carry out taxable transactions — Limitation to vehicles used                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                 exclusively for driving instruction)
                                                                               Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks
                                                                               related to exposure to biological agents at work — Failure to
                            (2001/C 212/03)                                                implement within the prescribed period)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/04)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communities                       In Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic                         (Agent: W. Bogensberger) v Republic of Austria (Agent:


title: Case C-292/03: Action brought on 4 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
C 213/18                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
On a correct interpretation of article 26 of the Sixth Direc-               by the tour operator on seat-only sales in the financial year in
tive ( 1) on value added tax and of the judgment of the Court of            question or (b) the average revenue achieved by the tour
Justice in Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 Madgett and Baldwin                   operator on seat-only sales in the financial year in question?
[1998] ECR I-6229:
                                                                            (1 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
I.     In what, if any, circumstances is it open to a tour                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
       operator, which has completed its value added tax return                  turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
       for a financial year using the actual cost method which                   basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
       was the only method laid down in national legislation
       implementing the Directive, subsequently to recalculate
       its VAT liability partly in accordance with the market
       value method described in paragraph 46 of that judg-
       ment?
       (1) In particular may such a tour operator use the
             market value selectively in relation to different              Action brought on 4 July 2003 by the Commission of the
             financial years, and if so, in what circumstances?               European Communities against the Republic of Finland
       (2) In a case where the tour operator sells some of the                                          (Case C-292/03)
             in-house components of its packages to the public
             on a non-package basis (in this case flights) but does
             not sell other in-house components of some of its                                          (2003/C 213/31)
             packages to the public on a non-package basis
             (in this case cruises and campsites) can the tour
             operator:
                                                                            An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
             (a)   use the market value method in relation to               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 July
                   those packages (being the vast majority) where           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                   it can determine the value of all its in-house           represented by M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto, with an address
                   supplies (in this case flights) by reference to          for service in Luxembourg.
                   sales it has made to the public on a non-
                   package basis;
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
             (b)   in cases where the package includes in-house
                   elements which the tour operator does not sell           1.     Declare under Article 226 of the Treaty establishing the
                   to the public on a non-package basis (in this                   European Union that, by failing to adopt the laws,
                   case camp sites and cruises), can the tour                      regulations and administrative measures to comply with
                   operator use the market value method to                         Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and
                   determine the value of those in-house supplies                  of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life
                   that it does sell to the public (in this case the               vehicles (1) or in any event in failing to inform the
                   flights) where it has not been possible to                      Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed
                   establish a market value for other parts of the                 to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                   package.
                                                                            2.     Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs of the
                                                                                proceedings.
       (3) Must the use of the combination of methods be
             (a) simpler or (b) significantly simpler or (c) not
             significantly more complicated
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
       (4) Must the market value method produce the same,
             or a very similar, VAT liability as does the cost-
             based method?                                                  The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
                                                                            21 April 2002.
Is it possible in the circumstances of the present case to                  (1 ) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
identify that part of the in-house service relating to flights sold
as part of a holiday package by taking either (a) the average
cost of an airline seat increased by the average margin achieved


title: Case C-347/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Erich Pickert v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Erich Pickert v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-347/13)
   2013/C 274/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erich Pickert

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?

               3.

               If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-437/10: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Gap granen & producten v Commission

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/17

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Gap granen & producten v Commission
   (Case T-437/10) (1)

   2014/C 78/34
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-138/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 83/183/EEC — Transfer of residence from one Member State to another — Fee charged on registration of motor vehicles — Tax exemption)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 16 June 2005
   in Case C-138/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 83/183/EEC - Transfer of residence from one Member State to another - Fee charged on registration of motor vehicles - Tax exemption)
   (2005/C 217/33)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-138/04: action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 15 March 2004, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and T. Fich) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: J. Molde and A. Rahbøl Jacobsen) the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász and M.Ilešič, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 168 of 26.06.2004.


title: COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

text:
Avis juridique important

|

E1995J1123(01)

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

Official Journal C 312 , 23/11/1995 P. 0023 - 0023

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT (95/C 312/12)1. Composition of the CourtFollowing the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the European Union, and according to the Agreement on Transitional Arrangement for a period after the accession of certain EFTA States to the European Union, the appointment of the judges nominated by these States terminated on 30 June 1995.The EEA Agreement entered into force with regard to the Principality of Liechtenstein on 1 May 1995. Upon nomination by the Government of Liechtenstein Mr Carl Baudenbacher was appointed Judge of the EFTA Court by common accord of the three Contracting Parties to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the ESA/Court Agreement) for the period from 6 September 1995 to 5 September 2001. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court on 6 September 1995 Mr Carl Baudenbacher took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 2 of the ESA/Court Agreement.2. Election of the President of the CourtAfter the appointment of the new judge to the EFTA Court Mr Bjørn Haug resigned from his position as President in order to make it possible for all three judges to participate in the election. Thereafter, on 6 September 1995, Mr Bjørn Haug was elected as President for the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 30 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 6 September 1995 to 31 December 1996.3. Appointment of the Registrar of the EFTA CourtMr Per Christiansen was appointed as Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Protocol 5, Article 9 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 1 September 1995 to 31 August 1998, to succeed Ms Karin Hökborg. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court on 6 September 1995 Mr Per Christiansen took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 10 of the ESA/Court


title: Assignment of Mr Gratsias to Chambers

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/5

         Assignment of Mr Gratsias to Chambers
   2010/C 317/11
   On 26 October 2010 the Plenary Meeting of the General Court decided, further to Mr Gratsias’ taking up of his duties as Judge, to amend as follows the decision of the Plenary Meeting of 20 September 2010 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers.
   For the period from 26 October 2010 until the date of the taking up of his duties by the Bulgarian Judge, the Judges will be assigned as follows:

                     To the First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

               Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Gratsias, Judges.

                     To the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

               Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Gratsias, Judges.

                     To the Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;

                           Ms Labucka, Judge;

                           Mr Gratsias, Judge.