title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 February 2001 in Case T-97/00: Anastassia Vakalopoulou v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary agent — Fixed-term contract — Extension — Action for annulment and damages — Decision adversely affecting an official — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 150/27
—     in Case T-74/94: J.J.H. van den Broek, G.J.E. van Laar,                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      J.T. Salden, J.A.M. Wouters
                                                                                of 14 February 2001
—     in Case T-75/94: J.M.F.M. Flamand                                   in Case T-3/00: Athanasios N. Pitsiorlas v Council of the
                                                                                European Union and European Central Bank (1)
—     in Case T-86/94: J. Bakker, E. Hardeman, G.J. Prins, G. van              (Inadmissibility — Access to institution documents)
      Putten
                                                                                (2001/C 150/53)
—     in Case T-87/94:Th. H. Clemens, N.J.G.M. Costongs,
      W.A.J. Derks, R.P. Geertsema, W. Hermsen, P. Hogenk-                                     (Language of the case: Greek)
      amp, J.H. Kelder, G.M. Kuijs, E.J. Liefting, J.H. Nieuwenhu-
      izen, D.J. Preuter, A.J.M. Sturkenboom, J.J. de Wit                 In Case T-3/00: Athanasios Pitsiorlas, residing in Thessaloniki
                                                                          (Greece), Dimitris Papafilippou, Barrister, against Council of
                                                                          the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer, S. Kyriakopoulou and
—     in Case T-91/94: D. Vellema, J. and K. Visser                       D. Zachariou) and European Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli,
                                                                          P. Vospernik and C. Kroppenstedt) — application for annul-
                                                                          ment of the decision of the Council of 30 July 1999 and of the
—     in Case T-94/94: J.W. Esselink                                      decision of the European Central Bank of 8 November 1999,
                                                                          refusing the applicant access to a document — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
—     in Case T-96/94: J.P. Groot                                         President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                          Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2001, the operative
                                                                          part of which is as follows:
—     in Case T-101/94: A.J. Dubbelhuis, A. Harkema, W. Knol
                                                                          1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible to the extent that it is
                                                                                directed against the Council decision of 30 July 1999;
—     in Case T-104/94: H. Rozema, B.L. van der Wijk
                                                                          2.    The applicant shall bear his own expenses corresponding to the
                                                                                objection of inadmissibility as well as pay for the costs incurred
—     in Case T-105/94: W. Talsma                                               by the Council.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 122 29.4.00
—     in Case T-106/94: R. and F. Visser, L.H. Hiddema
—     in Case T-118/94: J. Hoedjes, J.K. Veenstra
—     in Case T-119/94: A.J.M. and F.J.M. Baack, A.B. ten                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Broeke, O. Dallinga, L.A. Looman, J.H. Hoogendoorn
                                                                                of 2 February 2001
—     in Case T-122/94: A.G.J. van Boxtel
                                                                          in Case T-97/00: Anastassia Vakalopoulou v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
—     in Case T-124/94: K.A. Schutter
                                                                          (Temporary agent — Fixed-term contract — Extension —
                                                                          Action for annulment and damages — Decision adversely
—     in Case T-130/94: R. van Dijk, H.J. Hiermstra,                             affecting an official — Manifestly inadmissible)
      A.W.J. Reijers.
                                                                                (2001/C 150/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 334 of 9.12.93, C 27 of 28.1.94, C 43 of 12.2.94, C 59 of
    26.2.94, C 90 of 26.3.94, C 103 of 11.4.94, C 120 of 30.4.94,         In Case T-97/00: Anastassia Vakalopoulou, member of the
    C 132 of 14.5.94, C 233 of 20.8.94 and C 370 of 24.12.94              temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, residing at Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
                                                                          Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
                                                                          for annulment of the alleged decision of the Commission not
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/28                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.5.2001
to extend the applicant’s contract as a member of the                       1.    Cases T-112/00 and T-122/00 are joined.
temporary staff and a claim for compensation for the non-
material damage alleged caused to her — the Court of                        2.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,                  3.    The applicants are to pay the costs.
Registrar, made an order on 2 February 2001, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                                4.    There is no need to adjudicate on the application of the
                                                                                European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) for leave to
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                               intervene.
2.    Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.00.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 19 January 2001
                        of 24 January 2001
                                                                            in Case T-126/00: Confederazione Generale dell’Industria
in Cases T-112/00 and T-122/00: Iberotam SA and Others                      Italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Commission of the
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)                                             European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Directive 91/414/EEC — Placing                      (Time-limit for bringing an action — Manifest inadmissi-
on the market of plant protection products — Regulation                                                     bility)
(EC) No 451/2000 — Work programme for the evaluation
of existing active substances on the market (second and third
                                                                                (2001/C 150/56)
                   stages) — Inadmissibility)
                          (2001/C 150/55)                                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)                           In Case T-126/00: Confederazione Generale dell’Industria
                                                                            Italiana (Confindustria), Confederazione Generale Italiana del
                                                                            Commercio, del Turismo, dei Servizi e delle PMI (Confcommer-
In Cases T-112/00 and T-122/00: Iberotam SA, established in
                                                                            cio), Confartigianato, Associazione Bancaria Italiana (ABI),
Barcelona (Spain), Probelete SA, established in Murcia (Spain),
                                                                            established in Rome, Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese
Agripraza SA, established at Torres Vedras (Portugal), Protex
                                                                            Assicuratrici (ANIA), established in Milan (Italy), and Banco di
SA, established at Wijnegem (Belgium), Laboratoire d’Achat
                                                                            Napoli SpA, established in Naples (Italy), represented by
pour l’Agriculture (LAPA), established at Omicourt (Belgium),
                                                                            A. Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and M. Merola, of the Rome
Afrasa SA, established at Fuente del Jarro-Paterna (Spain),
                                                                            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Herbex SA, established at Sintra (Portugal), European Crop
                                                                            Chambers of A. Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v Commission of
Care Association (ECCA), established at Eghezee (Belgium),
                                                                            the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and V. Di
represented by M. Roca Junyent and J, Roca Sagarra, of the
                                                                            Bucci) — application for annulment of Commission Decision
Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                            2000/128/CE of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy
the Chambers of V. Gillen, 13 Rue Aldringen, applicants in
                                                                            to promote employment (OJ 2000 L 42, p. 1) — the Court
Case T-112/00, and K & N Efthymiadis SA, established in
                                                                            of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
Thessaloniki (Greece), represented by M. Roca Junyent and
                                                                            composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, and K. Lenaerts,
J, Roca Sagarra, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for
                                                                            A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of V. Gillen, 13 Rue
                                                                            made an order on 19 January 2001, the operative part of
Aldringen, applicant in Case T-122/00, v Commission of the
                                                                            which is as follows:
European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and A.-M. Alves
Vieira) — application for annulment of Commission Regu-
                                                                            1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
lation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down
the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and
                                                                            2.    The applicant shall bear the costs.
third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2)
of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25) — the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                      (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
P. Mengozzi, President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 24 January 2001,
the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-32/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Dresden — Germany) — Ute Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Absence of reasonable doubt — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 2(l) — Definition of ‘cancellation’ — Flight making an unscheduled stopover)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/9

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Dresden — Germany) — Ute Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited
   (Case C-32/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Absence of reasonable doubt - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(l) - Definition of ‘cancellation’ - Flight making an unscheduled stopover))
   (2016/C 475/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Dresden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ute Wunderlich

      Defendant: Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

      Operative part of the order

   Article 2(l) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a flight in respect of which the places of departure and arrival accorded with the planned schedule but during which an unscheduled stopover took place cannot be regarded as cancelled.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Action brought on 26 May 1997 by Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-165/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/23
Action brought on 24 May 1997 by Albert Verleysen                      — declare that the applicant is entitled to a review of his
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       initial classification as from his appointment on
                        ( Case T-162/97 )                                   1 November 1992 pursuant to Article 31 ( 2 ) and
                                                                            Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, and to
                           ( 97/C 228/54 )                                  readjustment of his career,
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs of these
                                                                            proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1997                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Albert Verleysen, residing at Denderleuuw ( Belgium),
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                relied upon in Case T-16/97 (').
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 August 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that he be reclassified
     in the higher grade of his career bracket in accordance           Action brought on 28 May 1997 by Kyriakos Skrikas
     with Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   against the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-167/97 )
— annul the Commission's decision of 3 February 1997
     rejecting the administrative complaint made by the                                           ( 97/C 228/56 )
     applicant against the first of the contested decisions,                            (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Communities on 28 May 1997 by Kyriakos Skrikas,
                                                                       residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
Case T-16/97 I 1 ).                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                       of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul the decision not to promote the applicant to
                                                                             grade C 3 in the course of the 1996 promotions
                                                                             procedure,
Action brought on 26 May 1997 by Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz Talegon against Commission of the European                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                             Communities
                         ( Case T-165/97)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 228/55 )
                                                                        In the context of the 1996 promotions procedure, the
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)                        appointing authority considered 28 potential promotions
                                                                        from grade C 4 to grade C 3 amongst a total of 186
 An action against the Commission of the European                       officials eligible for promotion, including the applicant.
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 1997                    The applicant, who was not promoted, maintains that the
 by Carlos Gomez de la Cruz Talegon, residing at                        adoption of the contested decision infringed Article 45 of
 Luxembourg, represented by Victor Gomez de la Cruz, of                 the Staff Regulations and breached the principle of
 the Malaga Bar, with an address for service in                         equality of treatment and non-discrimination and the
 Luxembourg c/o Consuelo Perez Anaya, 24 Marguerite de                  applicant's legitimate rights and interests, in particular his
 Brabant .                                                              interest in being promoted to grade C 3 following his
                                                                        reassignment to the 'Minutes' Division of the Parliament's
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Directorate-General 1 .
 — annul the decision adopted by the Commission                         According to the applicant, the contested decision was
      ( appointing authority) on 30 July 1996 not to                    adopted in breach of the rules governing the promotions
      reclassify the applicant and the decision of the                  procedure . He claims that it is vitiated by a manifest error
      Commission of 3 February 1997 rejecting the                       committed in the course of consideration of the merits of
      complaint made by the applicant against that refusal,             those eligible for promotion to grade C 3 , that it is totally


title: Case T-208/16: Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Ranocchia v ERCEA

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/38

         Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Ranocchia v ERCEA
   (Case T-208/16)
   (2016/C 243/42)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Graziano Ranocchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Intino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (Brussels, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the ERCEA Redress Committee of 26 February 2016 (Ref: Ares(2016)1020667 — 29/02/2016), issued following the formal redress request submitted on 22 December 2016 vis-à-vis the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529);

               —

               annul the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529) and all documents connected with those mentioned above, including the list of projects approved by the ERC-Cog-2015 SH5-Cultures and Cultural Production panel, which was made public by the ERCEA by press release of 12 February 2016;

               —

               annul any prior, subsequent or connected measures.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his action, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers, on the grounds that the evaluation is manifestly unreasonable, that there has been a distortion of the facts on which the decision not to approve the proposal is based, and that the ERCEA’s rules on evaluating proposals have been infringed.
   The applicant submits that the selection procedures concerned have been vitiated with regard to both the objective and subjective scope of evaluation.
   As regards the first point, the applicant argues that there is a total lack of consistency between the (extremely positive) evaluations of the individual committee members and the final overall evaluation (rejection of the proposal), and that there has been an incorrect application of the evaluation criteria.
   As regards the second point, the applicant focuses on what he considers to be a false representation of the acts and facts which led to the decision not to approve the proposal. He draws particular attention to the incorrect interpretation of the criterion of ‘excellence’ for the purposes of the evaluation.


title: Case C-313/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite Civili) by order of that court of 19 April 2001 in the case of Christine Valia Morgenbesser against Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati di Genova, Consiglio Nazionale Forense, Procuratore Generale presso la Corte Suprema di Cassazione

text:
13.10.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/17
Action brought on 8 August 2001 by the Commission of                    authority of the country of residence, which is thus the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                     ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of Article 1(o)(ii)
                            Netherlands                                 of the regulation. It is this benefit which may temporarily be
                                                                        exported to another Member State pursuant to the rules in
                                                                        Article 69 of the regulation within the context of the search
                          (Case C-311/01)                               for work.
                         (2001/C 289/32)
                                                                        Article 69 of the regulation must for that reason normally be
                                                                        applied by the State of residence in favour of the unemployed
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought            frontier worker unless the latter moves to the State in which
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 he formerly worked and the general rule of the ‘lex loci laboris’
on 8 August 2001 by the Commission of the European                      (Article 13(2)(a) of the regulation) becomes applicable once
Communities, represented by H. Michard and H. van Vliet,                more.
acting as Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     rule that, by refusing to allow wholly unemployed frontier
      workers to make use of the possibility under Article 69
      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
      1971 on the application of social security schemes to
      employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
      members of their families moving within the Community
      to move to the territory of one or more other Member              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
      States for the purpose of seeking work while retaining            di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite Civili) by order of that
      entitlement to unemployment benefit under the con-                court of 19 April 2001 in the case of Christine Valia
      ditions laid down in that article, the Kingdom of the             Morgenbesser against Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvoca-
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under            ti di Genova, Consiglio Nazionale Forense, Procuratore
      Articles 69 and 71 of that regulation;                                  Generale presso la Corte Suprema di Cassazione
—     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of
      the proceedings.                                                                          (Case C-313/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
The case concerns a simple cumulative application of Articles           Cassazione (Sezioni Unite Civili) of 19 April 2001, received at
71(1)(a)(ii) and 69 of Regulation No 1408/71. Under                     the Court Registry on 8 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling
Article 71(1)(a)(ii), a wholly unemployed frontier worker is            in the case of Christine Valia Morgenbesser against Consiglio
entitled to receive unemployment benefit in accordance with             dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Genova, Consiglio Nazionale
the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he               Forense, Procuratore Generale presso la Corte Suprema di
resides as though he had been subject to that legislation while         Cassazione on the following question:
last employed. The country of residence must therefore
normally apply Article 69 of the regulation in the case where
the frontier worker in question wishes, for purposes of seeking         which is: whether, irrespective of recognition and confir-
work, to move to a Member State other than that in which he             mation, an academic qualification obtained by a Community
was previously working. If the frontier worker satisfies the            national in a State of the Community (in this case, France) can
preconditions of Article 69 the facilities provided for under           be relied upon automatically in another State (in this case
that article ought to be made available to him. There is in this        Italy), in the same way as the provisions of the EC Treaty cited
case no question of ‘re-exportation’ of benefits.                       by the appellant concerning the right of establishment and
Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of the regulation does not provide for             freedom to provide services (Articles 10, 12, 14, 39 and 43
exportation of unemployment benefit from the country in                 EC, ex Articles 5, 6, 7a, 48 and 52) and also Article 149 (ex
which the person works to the country in which he resides;              Article 126) of the Treaty.
the unemployment benefit is paid by and on behalf of the
authority of the place of residence and in accordance with the
criteria of the legislation of the country of residence. It is in
reality a benefit of the country of residence, to be paid by the


title: Case T-81/01: Action brought on 5 April 2001 by M.O.H. Verdoodt and I.E.M. Rademakers-Verdoodt against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 186/11
The applicant alleges, inter alia, that the principle of equal           applicants submitted to the Commission on 20 October 2000
treatment was infringed in her oral test. That test, which was           that the gypsum tanker Arizona be exempted from application
conducted in German as ‘Language 1’, was not attended by a               of the ‘old-for-new obligations’ laid down in Article 4(1) of
member of the selection board with German as mother tongue,              Regulation No 718/1999. In the contested decision, the
while other candidates had examiners whose mother tongue                 Commission decided not to grant the requested exemption, a
was their ‘Language 1’. The applicant contends that she was              decision which has a direct adverse effect on the applicants’
not always understood correctly during the test. By reason of            interests.
that infringement of the principle of equal treatment the
selection board failed to observe the rules governing its work,
and it was not ensured in accordance with Article 27 of the
Staff Regulations that the defendant secured the services of             The vessel Arizona is a gypsum tanker which transports
officials of the highest standard of ability.                            calcined gypsum. In the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                         takes the view, by reference to the conditions laid down in
                                                                         Article 4(6) of the regulation, that if those conditions are
                                                                         satisfied, the vessel does not contribute to an increase in fleet
                                                                         capacity and thus does not adversely affect the objectives of
                                                                         the Community rules. The Commission states that, while
                                                                         consulting the expert group ‘capacity policy and promotion of
                                                                         Community inland waterway transport’, it learned that, as a
                                                                         gypsum tanker, the vessel carries out transport operations in
                                                                         the same way as other vessels on the market which also
                                                                         transport gypsum but which have not benefited from exemp-
Action brought on 5 April 2001 by M.O.H. Verdoodt and                    tion from the ‘old-for-new’ rule.
I.E.M. Rademakers-Verdoodt against the Commission of
                  the European Communities
                                                                         According to the applicants, however, the consignments for
                          (Case T-81/01)                                 transport by the Arizona are not ’gypsum’ but rather calcined
                                                                         gypsum. Previously, calcined gypsum was transported solely
                                                                         by lorry: apart from the Arizona, there is no vessel which can
                         (2001/C 186/17)                                 and may transport calcined gypsum. The gypsum which other
                                                                         vessels transport is therefore a different type of cargo to the
                                                                         calcined gypsum which the Arizona transports. Other vessels
                                                                         transport loose or rough gypsum. Moreover, the market for
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         vessels which transport ‘gypsum’ is different to that for the
                                                                         transport of calcined gypsum. The market for the transpor-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                tation of calcined gypsum consists of lorry transport and, since
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               the construction of the Arizona, of transport by the Arizona,
European Communities on 5 April 2001 by M.O.H. Verdoodt                  which thus, each year, moves the equivalent of some 2 400 lor-
and I.E.M. Rademakers-Verdoodt, both resident in Schoten                 ries. The Arizona is technically unsuitable for the transportation
(Belgium), represented by J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar.              of other goods. The European Commission’s view that, follow-
                                                                         ing minor modifications, the Arizona could transport any type
                                                                         of goods is clearly attributable to erroneous information.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
(1) Annul Commission Decision SG (2001) D/286098 of
      9 February 2001 not to grant the applicants the requested          The Commission errs in its conclusion that granting the
      exemption from the old-for-new obligations set out in              Arizona exemption from the old-for-new rule would result in
      Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of             a distortion of competition. On the contrary, ‘fair and honest
      29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to              treatment of all market players’ means that the Arizona, as
      promote inland waterway transport, and rule that the               a specialised vessel satisfying the classification criteria of
      requested exemption ought to be granted in respect of              Article 4(6) of Regulation No 718/1999, ought to be exempted
      the Arizona;                                                       from the old-for-new obligations.
(2) Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicants offer to substantiate their views by all legal
                                                                         means, in particular by way of witnesses and experts.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants challenge Commission Decision SG (2001)
D/286098 of 9 February 2001, which is addressed to them.
That decision was issued in response to the request which the


title: Case F-104/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — de Pretis Cagnodo and Trampuz de Pretis Cagnodo v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Serious illness — Concept — Hospitalisation — Reimbursement — Direct payment by the claims settlement office — No upper limit in the general implementing provisions for costs of stay — Obligation to inform the insured beforehand in the event of excessive billing)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — de Pretis Cagnodo and Trampuz de Pretis Cagnodo v Commission
   (Case F-104/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Social security - Serious illness - Concept - Hospitalisation - Reimbursement - Direct payment by the claims settlement office - No upper limit in the general implementing provisions for costs of stay - Obligation to inform the insured beforehand in the event of excessive billing)
   2013/C 189/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Mario Alberto de Pretis Cagnodo and Serena Trampuz (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing to reimburse 100 % of certain medical expenses in connection with the hospitalisation of the applicant’s wife.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the claims settlement office, Ispra (Italy), as evidenced by payment note No 10 of 1 October 2009, charging Mr de Pretis Cagnodo the amount of EUR 28 800 for costs of stay for Mrs Trampuz de Pretis Cagnodo, considered excessive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear all its own costs and to pay all costs incurred by Mr de Pretis Cagnodo and Mrs Trampuz de Pretis Cagnodo.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 42.


title: Case C-352/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln lodged on 25 August 2006 — Brigitte Bosmann v Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Aachen

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln lodged on 25 August 2006 — Brigitte Bosmann v Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Aachen
   (Case C-352/06)
   (2006/C 281/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brigitte Bosmann

      Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Aachen
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Is Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community to be interpreted restrictively, so as not to prevent entitlement to child benefit of a mother bringing up children on her own in the State or residence (Federal Republic of Germany), who does not receive child benefit in the State of employment (Kingdom of the Netherlands) because of the age of the children?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Is Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2) to be interpreted restrictively, so as not to prevent entitlement to child benefit of a mother bringing up children on her own in the State of residence (Federal Republic of Germany), who does not receive child benefit in the State of employment (Kingdom of the Netherlands) because of the age of the children?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 and Question 2 is in the negative:
               Does a mother in employment, who brings up children on her own, have a right to the application of the more favourable rules of her State of residence in relation to the granting of child benefit arising directly from the EC Treaty and/or from general legal principles?

               4.

               Is it relevant to the answers to the above questions whether the employee returns to the family residence at the end of each working day?

      (1)  OJ L 149, p. 2.

      (2)  OJ L 74, p. 1.


title: Case T-147/05: Action brought on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia Resusta against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/25

         Action brought on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia Resusta against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-147/05)
   (2005/C 155/48)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia Resusta, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean Van Rossum, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision to dismiss the applicant's request for recognition of the occupational origin of his disease or aggravation thereof, which prevents him from performing the tasks associated with a post in his category and grade,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission adopted the contested decision following the judgment of 23 November 2004 of the Court of First Instance in Case T-376/02 (1), which annulled the Commission's decision of 14 January 2002 awarding the applicant an invalidity pension.
   In support of his action, the applicant alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of Article 3 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, on the grounds that the opinion of the Medical Committee, which decided that it had not been established sufficiently that the aggravation of the applicant's disease had a direct connection with the duties he had performed, was contrary to the opinion of the Invalidity Committee, which had found the applicant's pre-existing disease had been aggravated by the stress related to his duties.

      (1)  Application published in OJ 2003 C 44 of 22.2.2003, p. 37, judgment published in OJ 2004 C 45 of 19.2.2005, p. 23.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 December 1999 in Case C-176/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna): Holst Italia SpA v Comune di Cagliari (Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Proof of standing of the service provider — Possibility of relying on the standing of another company)

text:
C 63/2                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              4.3.2000
1. Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed period, to classify       Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
     a sufficient area in the Poitevin Marsh as special protection areas,     coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts is
     by failing to adopt measures conferring a sufficient legal status        to be interpreted as permitting a service provider to establish that it
     on the special protection areas classified in the Poitevin Marsh,        fulfils the economic, financial and technical criteria for participation
     and by failing to adopt appropriate measures to avoid deterio-           in a tendering procedure for the award of a public service contract by
     ration of the sites in the Poitevin Marsh classified as special          relying on the standing of other entities, regardless of the legal nature
     protection areas and of certain of those which should have been          of the links which it has with them, provided that it is able to show
     so classified, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations  that it actually has at its disposal the resources of those entities which
     under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April               are necessary for performance of the contract. It is for the national
     1979 on the conservation of wild birds;                                  court to assess whether the requisite evidence in that regard has been
                                                                              adduced in the main proceedings.
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (First Chamber)
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                                         of 16 December 1999
                          of 2 December 1999                                  in Case C-74/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Østre Landsret): DAT-SCHAUB amba v Ministeriet
in Case C-176/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                   for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (1)
the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna):
            Holst Italia SpA v Comune di Cagliari (1)                         (Agriculture — Common organisation of the market — Beef
                                                                              and veal — Export refunds — Beef processed before entering
(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Proof of                    the country of import — International agreements — Effects
standing of the service provider — Possibility of relying on                  — Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic
                 the standing of another company)                             Community, of the one part, and the countries parties to the
                                                                              Charter of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of
                                                                                the Gulf, of the other part)
                              (2000/C 63/03)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/04)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-176/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                     in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Regional Adminis-                   In Case C-74/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
trative Court for Sardinia), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Østre Landsret
proceedings pending before that court between Holst Italia                    (Eastern Regional Court), Denmark, for a preliminary ruling in
SpA and Comune di Cagliari, intervener: Ruhrwasser AG                         the proceedings pending before that court between DAT-
International Water Management — on the interpretation of                     SCHAUB amba and Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   Fiskeri — on the interpretation of Article 17(2) of Commission
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                    Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  down common detailed rules for the application of the system
composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth                 of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351,
Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón,                 p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,                    (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathe-
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                let, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December 1999,                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
in which it has ruled:                                                        16 December 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-253/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — FlibTravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA v AAL Renting SA and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 96 TFEU — Applicability — National legislation prohibiting taxi services from offering individual seats — National legislation prohibiting taxi services from predetermining their destination — National legislation prohibiting taxi services from touting for custom)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — FlibTravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA v AAL Renting SA and Others
   (Case C-253/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 96 TFEU - Applicability - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from offering individual seats - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from predetermining their destination - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from touting for custom))
   (2017/C 151/18)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: FlibTravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA

      Respondents: AAL Renting SA, Haroune Tax SPRL, Saratax SCS, Ryad SCRI, Taxis Bachir & Cie SCS, Abdelhamid El Barjraji, Abdelouahab Ben Bachir, Sotax SCRI, Mostapha El Hammouchi, Boughaz SPRL, Sahbaz SPRL, Jamal El Jelali, Mohamed Chakir Ben Kadour, Taxis Chalkis SCRL, Mohammed Gheris, Les délices de Fes SPRL, Abderrahmane Belyazid, E.A.R. SCS, Sotrans SPRL, B.M.A. SCS, Taxis Amri et Cie SCS, Aramak SCS, Rachid El Amrani, Mourad Bakkour, Mohamed Agharbiou, Omar Amri, Jmili Zouhair, Mustapha Ben Abderrahman, Mohamed Zahyani, Miltotax SPRL, Lextra SA, Ismail El Amrani, Farid Benazzouz, Imad Zoufri, Abdel-Ilah Bokhamy, Ismail Al Bouhali, Bahri Messaoud & Cie SCS, Mostafa Bouzid, BKN Star SPRL, M.V.S. SPRL, A.B.M.B. SCS, Imatrans SPRL, Reda Bouyaknouden, Ayoub Tahri, Moulay Adil El Khatir, Redouan El Abboudi, Mohamed El Abboudi, Bilal El Abboudi, Sofian El Abboudi, Karim Bensbih, Hadel Bensbih, Mimoun Mallouk, Abdellah El Ghaffouli, Said El Aazzoui

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 96(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not applying to restrictions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, imposed on taxi operators.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case T-572/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA)
   (Case T-572/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 527/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-497/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2012 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2012 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT)
   (Case T-497/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive nature - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 319/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l’information (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2011 (Case No R 370/2011-2), concerning an application to register the word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l’information to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


               28.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/27

         Action brought on 10 August 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Liechtenstein
   (Case E-11/10)
   2010/C 292/09
   An action against Lichtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 August 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA.

               2.

               The Principality of Liechtenstein bears the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               the application addresses the failure by Liechtenstein to fully comply with Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast),

               —

               it is stated in the Application that according to Article 33 of the Directive, read in conjuncture with EEA Joint Committee Decision No 33/2008, Liechtenstein was obliged to take the measures necessary to ensure full compliance with the Directive no later than 1 February 2009 and to communicate to the EFTA Surveillance Authority the text of those measures,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from the Liechtenstein government indicating that the Act has been fully implemented into national law, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude accordingly,

               —

               the Liechtenstein government has not disputed the delay in fully implementing the Act.


title: Case C-476/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2014  — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2014 — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)
   (Case C-476/14)
   (2014/C 462/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Citroën Commerce GmbH

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does an advertisement for a product which indicates the price to be paid for it constitute an offer within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/6/EC (1)?
               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               In the case of an offer within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/6/EC, must the selling price to be indicated in accordance with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 3(1) also include costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of a motor vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer?
               If the first or the second question is to be answered in the negative:

               3.

               In the case of an invitation to purchase within the meaning of Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29/EC (2), must the ‘price inclusive of taxes’ to be indicated in accordance with the provision governing the first scenario contemplated in Article 7(4)(c) of Directive 2005/29/EC also include, in the case of a motor vehicle, costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of the vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer?

      (1)  Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ 1998 L 80, p. 27).

      (2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case F-105/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 February 2012 — Bömcke v EIB

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 February 2012 — Bömcke v EIB
   (Case F-105/10) (1)

   2012/C 138/99
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 65.


title: Case C-304/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 3 June 2013 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Județean Timiș v Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Județului Timiș

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 3 June 2013 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Județean Timiș v Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Județului Timiș
   (Case C-304/13)
   2014/C 52/43
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Timișoara

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Județean Timiș

      Respondents: Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Județului Timiș

      Intervener: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA)

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, (1) in particular Articles 115 and 135 thereof, preclude a State from making the grant of a premium to a farmer subject to additional conditions, which are not laid down in that regulation, namely the condition that the farmer must ‘have no debts due in respect of the State budget and/or the local budget at the date of application for the premium’?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).


title: Case C-316/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Merckle GmbH (Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Prohibition on the advertising to the general public of medicinal products available only on prescription — Definition of ‘advertising’ — Information communicated to the competent authority — Information accessible on the internet)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Merckle GmbH
   (Case C-316/09) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Prohibition on the advertising to the general public of medicinal products available only on prescription - Definition of ‘advertising’ - Information communicated to the competent authority - Information accessible on the internet)
   2011/C 186/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

      Defendant: Merckle GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 88(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Prohibition on advertising to the general public of medicinal products which are available on medical prescription only — Concept of ‘advertising’ — Advertising in relation to a medicinal product providing access to information only to persons who undertake an Internet search and which contains only those indications communicated to the competent authority in the context of the marketing authorisation procedure relating to the medicinal product and which is available to patients on purchasing the product

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 88(1)(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not prohibit the dissemination on a website, by a pharmaceutical undertaking, of information relating to medicinal products available on medical prescription only, where that information is accessible on the website only to someone who seeks to obtain it and that dissemination consists solely in the faithful reproduction of the packaging of the medicinal product, in accordance with Article 62 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, and in the literal and complete reproduction of the package leaflet or the summary of the product’s characteristics, which have been approved by the authorities with competence in relation to medicinal products. On the other hand, the dissemination, on such a website, of information relating to a medicinal product which has been selected or rewritten by the manufacturer, which can be explained only by an advertising purpose, is prohibited. It is for the referring court to determine whether and to what extent the activities at issue in the main proceedings constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Joined Cases C-103/12 and C-165/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2014  — European Parliament (C-103/12), European Commission (C-165/12) v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Decision 2012/19/EU — Legal basis — Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU — Bilateral agreement authorising utilisation of the surplus of allowable catch — Choice of the third country that the European Union authorises to utilise living resources — Exclusive economic zone — Policy decision — Fixing fishing opportunities)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2014 — European Parliament (C-103/12), European Commission (C-165/12) v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-103/12 and C-165/12) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Decision 2012/19/EU - Legal basis - Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU - Bilateral agreement authorising utilisation of the surplus of allowable catch - Choice of the third country that the European Union authorises to utilise living resources - Exclusive economic zone - Policy decision - Fixing fishing opportunities))
   (2015/C 026/02)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, I. Liukkonen and I. Díez Parra, acting as Agents) (C-103/12), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents) (C-165/12)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/19/EU of 16 December 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Decision 2012/19/EU until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time after the date of the present judgment, of a new decision based on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 43(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Case T-501/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring v OHIM — Tillotts Pharma (OCTASA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark OCTASA — Earlier national word marks PENTASA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring v OHIM — Tillotts Pharma (OCTASA)
   (Case T-501/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OCTASA - Earlier national word marks PENTASA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 175/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented initially by I. Fowler, Solicitor, A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers, and subsequently by I. Fowler, A. Renck and D. Slopek, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tillotts Pharma AG (Ziefen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1214/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S and Tillotts Pharma AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1214/2011-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S;

               3.

               Orders Tillotts Pharma AG to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26. 1. 2013.


title: Case C-328/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 June 2011 by Alder Capital Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-209/09: Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gimv Nederland BV

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/30

         Appeal brought on 28 June 2011 by Alder Capital Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-209/09: Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gimv Nederland BV
   (Case C-328/11 P)
   2011/C 269/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alder Capital Ltd (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gimv Nederland BV

      Form of order sought

   The appellant requests the Court of Justice to make the following orders:

               —

               The judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 in Case T-209/09 and the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 20 February 2009 in Case R 486/2008-2 are annulled.

               —

               The costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office, before the General Court and before this Court shall be borne by the Office and by the Intervener.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant claims that the contested judgment must be annulled on three separate grounds.
   The principal ground is that the General Court committed legal error when it held that the Board of Appeal was required, as a matter of law, to review the claim for a declaration of invalidity as it had been presented to the Office's Invalidity Division. The Appellant's claim is that the scope of review was limited to the subject matter of the appeal brought by the Appellant.
   The subsidiary grounds are:

               —

               that the General Court committed legal error in dismissing the Appellants’ arguments as ‘irrelevant’ that the Intervener infringed applicable financial services authorisation and regulation and anti-money laundering laws and regulations in offering the services for which its mark ‘Halder’ was used in Germany (infringement of Article 56 (2) and (3) CTMR in conjunction with Article 15 CTMR), and

               —

               that the General Court committed legal error in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion even though the degree of attention of the public was ‘very high’ (infringement of Article 8 (l)(b) CTMR).


title: Opinion 1/15: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Parliament pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/24

         Request for an opinion submitted by the European Parliament pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
   (Opinion 1/15)
   (2015/C 138/32)
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and D. Moore, Agents)

      Questions submitted to the Court

               —

               Is the envisaged agreement (1) compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16 TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8 and Article 52(1)) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data?

               —

               Do Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act of the Council concluding the envisaged agreement or must that act be based on Article 16 TFEU?

      (1)  Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data.


title: Case T-368/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 September 2009 — Austria v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Cattle premium — Suckler cow premium — Payment for extensification — Key controls — Duty to use a computerised geographical information system — Control of Alpine forage areas — Duty to cooperate — Duty to state reasons — Type of financial correction applied — Extrapolation of the findings of default)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 September 2009 — Austria v Commission
   (Case T-368/05) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Cattle premium - Suckler cow premium - Payment for extensification - Key controls - Duty to use a computerised geographical information system - Control of Alpine forage areas - Duty to cooperate - Duty to state reasons - Type of financial correction applied - Extrapolation of the findings of default)
   2009/C 256/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: H. Dossi, initially, H. Dossi and C. Pesendorfer, subsequently, and C. Pesendorfer and A. Hable, finally, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher, Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2005/555/EC of 15 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 188, p. 36), inasmuch as it excluded certain expenditure by the Republic of Austria.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case T-794/14: Action brought on 5 December 2014  — AATC Trading/OHIM — El Corte Inglés (ALAΪA PARIS)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/38

         Action brought on 5 December 2014 — AATC Trading/OHIM — El Corte Inglés (ALAΪA PARIS)
   (Case T-794/14)
   (2015/C 065/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AATC Trading AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Lê Dai, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘ALAÏA PARIS’ No 3 485 166

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2014 in Case R 1411/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta by order of that tribunal of 12 March 1997 in the proceedings brought by Laura Pitkäranta, represented by her legal guardian Anne Pitkäranta (Case C-118/97)

text:
No C 166/6           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                fact of playing an ancillary and preparatory part in the
                                                                   exercise of public authority does not amount to direct and
Freedom of establishment                                           specific involvement in the exercise of that authority
                                                                   within the meaning of Article 55 of the Treaty.
A condition requiring the directors of a company to reside
in the Member State in which the company is established            Authority to bear arms, although exceptional, is not a
(Article 8 of Law No 23/1992 ) amounts to discrimination           right exclusive to the security forces or other agency of
on grounds of nationality.                                         public authority and therefore it cannot be argued that
                                                                   because security personnel are so authorized this
                                                                   necessarily means that they are connected with the
The requirement that undertakings should be constituted
                                                                   exercise of public authority. Thus, the Weapons
in Spain (Article 7 of Law No 23/1992 ) is explicitly
                                                                   Regulation, approved by Royal Decree No 137/1993 of
discriminatory and entails a restriction on the right of
                                                                   29 January 1993 provides that where the circumstances
undertakings to carry on their activities through a branch
                                                                   warrant it gun licences may be issued to individuals,
or agency as expressly provided for by Article 52 of the
                                                                   including nationals of another Member State . Clearly,
EC Treaty.
                                                                   security personnel have to hold a gun licence in order to
                                                                   be able to provide their services, like any other citizen.
Where security staff are self-employed, the nationality
requirement imposed by Article 10 ( 3 ) of Law No 23/
1992 infringes Article 52 of the Treaty as well .                  Article 56 of the EC Treaty
Freedom to provide services                                        The Commission considers that it is not obvious why the
                                                                   fact that a detective or a watchman guarding premises
The effect of the condition laid down in Article 7 of Law          (pursuing that activity in a self-employed capacity) is not
No 23/1992 that the undertaking should be constituted in           Spanish but is a national of another Member State should
Spain and the condition of residence for directors laid            pose a genuine and existing threat serious enough to affect
                                                                   a fundamental social interest .
down in Article 8 is to preclude all private security
activity carried out by security firms or personnel not
established in Spain. Such requirements constitute a               The exclusion of all undertakings whose directors and
discriminatory barrier to the freedom to provide services .        managers do not reside in Spain and of all nationals of
                                                                   other Member States would seem to be based essentially
Article 55 of the EC Treaty                                        on considerations of an administrative character.
The Commission considers that the mere fact that private           Freedom of movement for workers
undertakings have been entrusted with some security
services, which services have thus for the most part been
removed from the sphere of the State, excludes the                 Since security personnel are not public officials, it does
conclusion that 'private security (...) forms a functional         not appear that Article 48 (4 ) can be applicable .
part of the security monopoly which is the State's
concern'. Furthermore, the actual wording of Law No 23/            The grounds of public policy, public security and public
1992 states that the activities of security companies and          health referred to in Article 48 ( 3 ) do not permit an entire
staff are additional and ancillary to public security              sector of activity to evade freedom of movement for
activities, without going so far as to say that they form          workers and the right to take up employment.
part of public security.
                                                                   i 1 ) Boletín Oficial del Estado ( 4 . 8 . 1992 ).
Whether various activities are connected with the exercise
of official authority does not depend on their effects or
objective but rather on the powers and courses of action
made available to the undertakings or persons carrying on
those activities. Crime prevention does not necessarily
entail a prerogative of official authority, since in certain
circumstances individuals may take action to prevent               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
crime. Moreover, crime prevention in general has not been          Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta by order of that
arrogated to security firms and staff, only the aspects            tribunal of 12 March 1997 in the proceedings brought by
concerned with protection .                                        Laura Pitkaranta, represented by her legal guardian Anne
                                                                                Pitkaranta
                                                                                ( Case C-118/97)
Nor can the special duty to assist the Fuerzas y Cuerpos
de Seguridad ( security forces ) imposed on security firms                                       97/C 166/ 10 )
and personnel in the exercise of their duties, to collaborate
with those forces and follow their orders in relation to the
objective of protection support the conclusion that they           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
act in the exercise of public authority. Every citizen has         of the European Communities by an order of the
that duty in particular circumstances . Furthermore, the           Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta ( Rural Industries
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 166/7
Appeals Board ) of 12 March 1997, which was received at               of Justice, the latter must nevertheless begin
the Court Registry on 20 March 1997, for a preliminary                implementation of the judgment without delay and
ruling in the proceedings brought by Laura Pitkaranta,                conclude it as soon as possible .
represented by her legal guardian Anne Pitkaranta , on the
following questions :                                                 The application for determination of a penalty payment is
                                                                      based on Article 171 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty. The
1 . ( Question 1 is the same as Question 1 in Case C- 9/              Commission justifies the amount of the penalty by
     97 H )                                                           reference to its calculation method set out in Official
                                                                      Journal No C 242 of 21 . 8 . 1996, p. 6 . In evaluating the
2 . Is it contrary, with respect in particular to a minor             severity of the infringement, it proceeds on the basis that
     who regularly lives with her guardian in the Helsinki            only a single provision in a single Bundesland does not yet
     region about 70 kilometres by road from the                      comply with Council Directive 79/409/EEC ( 2 ), and that
     operational centre of the farm and who cannot herself            the infringement is essentially procedural , since there are
     carry on agriculture on the farm and whose guardian              no known cases of environmental damage arising from
     does not do so either on her own account, to the                 application of the rules currently in force in the Saarland
     prohibition of discrimination, the principle of                  ( Coefficient 1 /20 ). The Commission regards the period of
     proportionality or other principles to be observed in            treaty infringement as very considerable ( Coefficient 2/3 ).
     Community law to exclude her from the compensation               Concerning the deterrent effect of the penalty applied for,
     in question ?                                                    the Commission uses a calculation formula notified to the
                                                                      Member States, whereby reference is made to the relative
o OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 15 .                                 position of each Member State in relation to its gross
                                                                      domestic product and its weighted voting strength in the
                                                                      Council under Article 148 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                      o [ 1990] ECR 1-2721 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 103 , 1979 , p . 1 .
Action brought on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                            of Germany
                        ( Case C-121 /97 )
                          ( 97/C 166/ 11 )
                                                                      Action brought on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Federal Republic
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                                of Germany
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of                                               ( Case C-122/97 )
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur                                                 ( 97/C 166/ 12 )
Hausen, Legal Adviser to the Commission, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, a member of the Commission's Legal                  An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                      Communities on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
                                                                      Hausen, Legal Adviser to the Commission, with an
— declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of                address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos
     its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty for           Gomez de la Cruz, a member of the Commission's Legal
     failing to bring the Hunting Law of the Saarland into            Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     line with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case
     C-288/88 Commission v. Germany ('),                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                      — declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of
     Commission a penalty of ECU 26 400 (to Account
     H 1 KEG 'EC Own Resources', Bundeskasse Bonn ) for
                                                                             its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty for
                                                                             failing to comply with the judgment of the Court of
     each day of non-compliance with the obligations in
                                                                             Justice in Case C-58/89 Commission v. Germany ( 1 ),
     the first indent above, as from the date judgment is
     delivered,
                                                                      — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                           Commission a penalty of ECU 158 400 ( to Account
     costs .                                                                 H 1 KEG ' EC Own Resources ', Bundeskasse Bonn ) for
                                                                             each day of non-compliance with the obligations in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the first indent above , as from the date judgment is
                                                                             delivered,
Whilst Article 171 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty does not lay down
a specific time-limit for the Member State concerned to               — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
fulfil its obligations arising under a judgment of the Court                 costs .


title: Case T-292/08: Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Inditex v OHIM

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/16

         Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Inditex v OHIM
   (Case T-292/08)
   (2008/C 236/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, 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: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio (Logroño, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2008 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the annulment of that decision in respect of all or part of the goods refused.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘OFTEN’ (application No 2 798 270) for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word and figurative marks ‘OLTEN’ and Spanish figurative mark ‘OLTENWATCH’ for goods in Class 14.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding in part of the opposition.

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

      Pleas in law: Principally, infringement of Articles 61(1) and 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and, as a subsidiary plea, infringement of Articles 43(2) and 8(1)(b) of that regulation.


title: Case C-182/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) (United Kingdom) made on 12 April 2013 — Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) (United Kingdom) made on 12 April 2013 — Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited
   (Case C-182/13)
   2013/C 189/06
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty

      Defendant: Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the context of Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC (1), does ‘establishment’ have the same meaning as it has in the context of Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that Directive?

               2.

               If not, can ‘an establishment’, for the purposes of Article 1(1)(a)(ii), be constituted by an organisational sub-unit of an undertaking which consists of or includes more than one local employment unit?

               3.

               In Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Directive, does the phrase ‘at least 20’ refer to the number of dismissals across all of the employer's establishments, or does it instead refer to the number of dismissals per establishment? (In other words, is the reference to ‘20’ a reference to 20 in any particular establishment, or to 20 overall?)

      (1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies
   OJ L 225, p. 16


title: Case T-706/13: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Tui Deutschland v OHIM — Infinity Real Estate & Project Development (Sensimar)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/46

         Order of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Tui Deutschland v OHIM — Infinity Real Estate & Project Development (Sensimar)
   (Case T-706/13) (1)

   (2014/C 431/72)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.