title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 1997 in Case C-347/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública v. União das Cooperativas Abastecedoras de Leite de Lisboa, UCRL (UCAL) (National charge on the marketing of dairy products - Charge having equivalent effect - Internal taxation - Turnover tax)

text:
1.11.97                 I EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 331/5
Articles 48 to 51 of the EC Treaty, Article 9a of                           Administrativo (Portugal ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June                       proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda
1971 on the application of social security schemes to                       Publica and Uniao das Cooperativas Abastecedoras de
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                           Leite de Lisboa, UCRL (UCAL) on the interpretation of
members of their families moving within the Community,                      Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty and Article 33 of
as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)                          the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977
No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 and subsequently amended by                      on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2332/89 of 18 July 1989,                        relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
and Article 15 (1 ) (f) (ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72                  added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2 ) — the Court
of the Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the                             ( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/                        President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward, P.
71 , as amended and updated by Regulation (EEC)                             Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate
No 2001 /83 must be interpreted as not requiring a                          General; G. Tesauro, Registrar: R. Grass, gave a judgment
Member State to extend the reference period laid down by                    on 17 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
its legislation for determining the minimum insurance                       follows :
requirement for the grant of an invalidity benefit by a
period equivalent to the periods of unemployment spent
by the person concerned under the legislation of another                    1 . ( a ) A charge levied without distinction on domestic
Member State which, unlike that of the first Member
State, allows such an extension where the periods of
                                                                                and imported products constitutes a charge having
                                                                                an effect equivalent to a customs duty, prohibited
unemployment are spent on national territory. Moreover,
                                                                                by Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty, if the revenue
Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty do not preclude the
                                                                                from it is intended to finance activities benefiting
legislation of a Member State from refusing to take into                                only the taxed domestic products and if the
account, for the purposes of calculating whether the
                                                                                resultant advantages fully offset the burden which
minimum insurance requirement attaching to the grant of
                                                                                the latter products bear; if those advantages only
an invalidity benefit is satisfied, periods of insurance
                                                                                partly offset the burden borne by the domestic
against unemployment completed during a given period
                                                                                products, the charge constitutes discriminatory
preceding the contingency insured against under the                                     internal taxation prohibited by Article 95 of the
legislation of another Member State, over and above those
                                                                                Treaty and must be reduced proportionally.
which are taken into account by the legislation of the first
Member State during that same period.
                                                                                ( b ) If the activities financed by the charge benefit
0    OJ C 351 , 30. 12 . 1995 .                                                         domestic products and taxed imported products
(2)  OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .                                   but the former obtain a proportionally greater
(3)  OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .                                                  advantage from them, the charge constitutes, to
(4 ) OJ L 224, 2 . 8 . 1989, p. 1 .
( 5) OJ English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159.                                       that extent, a charge having an effect equivalent to
                                                                                a customs duty or discriminatory internal taxation,
                                                                                depending on whether the advantage accruing to
                                                                                the taxed domestic products fully or only partly
                                                                                offsets the burden which they bear.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2. It is for the national court to undertake the
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                      verifications necessary for determining how the
                         of 17 September 1997                                    contribution in question is to be characterized in law.
                                                                                In so doing, it will consider:
in Case C-347/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública v.
União das Cooperativas Abastecedoras de Leite de Lisboa,                          ( a ) whether the revenue from the charge is used for
                           UCRL ( UCAL) H                                               stabilization only of trade with the other Member
                                                                                States in the products on which the charge is
(National charge on the marketing of dairy products —                                   imposed;
Charge having equivalent effect — Internal taxation —
                             Turnover tax)
                             ( 97/C 331/09 )                                      ( b ) whether the institutional integration of the
                                                                                organizations representing the economic agents
                                                                                concerned and the implementation of the national
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                       and Community aid schemes and financial and
                                                                                fiscal incentives in favour of the agri-foodstuffs
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                         industry and the distribution of agri-foodstuffs, to
          published in the European Court Reports)                                      which part of the revenue from the charges in
                                                                                question is appropriated, benefit only domestic
                                                                                production or whether they benefit such
In    Case   C-347/95 — reference to the                Court under                     production proportionally more than imported
Article 177 of the Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal                                       products.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331 /6                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   1 . 11 . 97
3 . A tax levied only on certain products, which is not                            domestic and imported products according to the
      proportional to the price of those products, is not                          same criteria are covered in principle by Article 95
      charged at each stage of the production and                                  et seq. of the EC Treaty.
      distribution process and is not imposed on the added
       value of the products, is not in the nature of a
       turnover tax within the meaning of Article 33 of the
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977                          A charge levied without distinction on domestic
       on the harmonization of the laws of the Member                              and imported products constitutes a charge having
      States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of                         an effect equivalent to a customs duty, prohibited
       value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.                               by Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty, if the revenue
                                                                                from it is intended to finance activities benefiting
                                                                                only the taxed domestic products and if the
(') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .                                                    resultant advantages fully offset the burden which
( 2 ) OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                            the latter products bear; if those advantages only
                                                                                partly offset the burden borne by the domestic
                                                                                products, the charge constitutes discriminatory
                                                                                internal taxation prohibited by Articles 95 of the
                                                                                Treaty and must be reduced proportionally.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       ( b ) If the activities financed by the charge benefit
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                       domestic products and taxed imported products
                                                                                but the former obtain a proportionally greater
                          of 17 September 1997                                     advantage from them, the charge constitutes, to
                                                                                that extent, a charge having an effect equivalent to
in Case C-28/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           a customs duty or discriminatory internal taxation,
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ): Fazenda Publica v.                          depending on whether the advantage accruing to
                             Fricarnes SA (')                                      the taxed domestic products fully or only partly
(National charges on the marketing of meat — Charge                                offsets the burden which they bear.
having equivalent effects — Internal taxation — Turnover
                                      tax)
                              ( 97/C 331/10                               2. It is for the national court to undertake the
                                                                             verifications necessary for determining how the
                                                                             contributions in question are to be characterized in
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                           law. In so doing it will consider:
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             ( a ) whether the revenue from the charge at issue,
                                                                                which is specifically intended to be used to combat
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                diseases of livestock reared on national territory,
                                                                                benefits exclusively animals of national origin or,
                                                                                at least, benefits them proportionally more than
In      Case  C-28/96 — reference           to  the   Court under                  imported animals;
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo ( Portugal ) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda
Publica and Fricarnes SA on the interpretation of                             ( b) whether the revenue from all the charges at issue is
Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty and Article 33 of                           used for stabilization only of trade with the other
the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977                          Member States in the products which bear the
on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                              charges;
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court
 ( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                     (c ) whether the institutional integration of the
President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, C. Gulmann, J. P.
                                                                                organizations representing the economic agents
Puissochet and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges;                                  concerned and the implementation of the national
Advocate General: G. Tesauro, H. von Holstein, Deputy                              and Community aid schemes and financial and
Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                                   fiscal incentives in favour of the agri-foodstuffs
 17 December 1997, the operative part of which is as                               industry and the distribution of agri-foodstuffs, to
 follows :
                                                                                which part of the revenue from the charges in
                                                                                question is appropriated, benefit only domestic
                                                                                production or whether they benefit such
 1 . ( a ) Pecuniary charges under a general system of                             production proportionally more than imported
           internal charges applying systematically to                             products.


title: Case T-494/14: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Klymenko v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/34

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Klymenko v Council
   (Case T-494/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))
   (2016/C 305/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksandr Klymenko (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Shaw QC, and I. Quirk, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and J.-P. Hix, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Oleksandr Klymenko.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Klymenko.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case T-252/06 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Beau v Commission (Appeals — Staff cases — Officials — Occupational illness — Appeal manifestly inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/10

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Beau v Commission
   (Case T-252/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - Officials - Occupational illness - Appeal manifestly inadmissible - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 223/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Marie-Yolande Beau (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2006 in Case F-39/05 Beau v Commission, not yet published in the ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Beau to bear her own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case C-229/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 18(c), 184 and 187 — Taxable transactions — Cessation of the taxable economic activity — Retention of goods on which VAT became deductible — Adjustment of deductions — Adjustment period — Taxation pursuant to Article 18(c) of Directive 2006/112 on expiry of the adjustment period)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/10

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak
   (Case C-229/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 18(c), 184 and 187 - Taxable transactions - Cessation of the taxable economic activity - Retention of goods on which VAT became deductible - Adjustment of deductions - Adjustment period - Taxation pursuant to Article 18(c) of Directive 2006/112 on expiry of the adjustment period))
   (2016/C 305/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: Jan Mateusiak

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a taxable person ceases to carry out a taxable economic activity, the retention of goods by that taxable person, where valued added tax on such goods became deductible upon their acquisition, can be treated as a supply of goods for consideration and be subject to value added tax if the adjustment period laid down in Article 187 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162, has passed.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-369/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH v Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Waste electrical and electronic equipment — Directive 2002/96/EC — Articles 2(1) and 3(a) and Annexes I A and I B — Directive 2012/19/EU — Articles 2(1)(a), 2(3)(b) and 3(1)(a) and (b), and Annexes I and II — Concepts of ‘electrical and electronic equipment’ and ‘electrical and electronic tools’ — Garage-door operating devices)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH v Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-369/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Waste electrical and electronic equipment - Directive 2002/96/EC - Articles 2(1) and 3(a) and Annexes I A and I B - Directive 2012/19/EU - Articles 2(1)(a), 2(3)(b) and 3(1)(a) and (b), and Annexes I and II - Concepts of ‘electrical and electronic equipment’ and ‘electrical and electronic tools’ - Garage-door operating devices))
   (2015/C 311/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH

      Defendant: Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(1) and 3(a) of Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and Annexes I A, point 6, and I B, point 6, thereto, and Article 2(1)(a) and 2(3)(b), and Article 3(1)(a) and (b), of Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and Annexes I, point 6, and II, point 6, thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that garage-door operating devices, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are dependent on an electric current of approximately 220 to 240 volts to work properly, designed to be incorporated into the building structure together with the relevant garage door and can at any time be dismantled, re-installed and/or added to that structure, fall within the scope of Directive 2002/96 and, during the transitional period fixed in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2012/19, that of the latter directive.

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 1997 in Case C-295/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Circuit Court, County of Dublin): Jackie Farrell v. James Long (Brussels Convention - Article 5 (2) - Definition of 'maintenance creditor')

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 142/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                                of 20 March 1997
in      Case C-96/95 : Commission of the European
        Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (')                in Case C-295/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Circuit Court, County of Dublin ): Jackie Farrell v.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                          James Long (')
Right of residence — Council Directives 90/364/EEC and
                            90/365/EEC)                               (Brussels Convention — Article 5 (2) — Definition of
                                                                                'maintenance creditor')
                           ( 97/C 142/09 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/10 )
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-295/95 : reference to the Court under the
In Case C-96/95 : Commission of the European                          Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
Communities ( Agents : Pieter van Nuffel and Horstpeter               Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
Kreppel ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst              on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
Roder and Bernd Kloke ) — application for a declaration               and Commercial Matters from the Circuit Court, County
that, by not adopting within the prescribed period, or by             of Dublin, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
not communicating to the Commission forthwith, the                    pending before that court between Jackie Farrell and
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary             James Long — on the interpretation of Article 5 ( 2 ) of the
for transposing into national law Council Directive 90/               abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ
365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for                 No L 304, 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 36 ), as amended by the
employees and self-employed persons who have ceased                   Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
their occupational activity ( OJ No L 180, 13 . 7. 1990,              Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
p. 28 ) and Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990              Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, 30 . 10 .
on the right of residence ( OJ No L 180, 13 . 7. 1990,                 1978 , p. 1 and — in the amended version — p. 77 ) and
p. 26 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court                of the Hellenic Republic ( OJ No L 388 , 31 . 12 . 1982,
 ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the           p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.
First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber               Mancini, President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris
 ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                   ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R.
Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate              Schintgen, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl,
 General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 20 March 1997, in which it:                                          judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has ruled:
 1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                  The first limb of Article 5 (2) of the Convention of
      provisions necessary for transposing into national law          27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement
       Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the             of Judgments - in Civil and Commercial Matters, as
       right of residence, or Council Directive 90/365/EEC of          amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
       28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees            Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
      and self-employed persons who have ceased their                   United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
       occupational activity, the Federal Republic of                  and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under              Accession of the Hellenic Republic, must be interpreted as
       Article 5 of those two Directives;
                                                                       meaning that the term 'maintenance creditor' covers any
                                                                      person applying for maintenance, including a person
                                                                       bringing a maintenance action for the first time.
 2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
       costs .
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 286, 28 . 10. 1995 .
 (M OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case C-15/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports — Article 35 TFEU — Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium — Legislation requiring invoices to be drawn up in Dutch, failing which they are null and void — Cross-border concession agreement — Restriction — Justification — Disproportionate)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl
   (Case C-15/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports - Article 35 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Legislation requiring invoices to be drawn up in Dutch, failing which they are null and void - Cross-border concession agreement - Restriction - Justification - Disproportionate))
   (2016/C 314/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: New Valmar BVBA

      Defendant: Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 35 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as the Flemish Community of the Kingdom of Belgium, which requires every undertaking that has its place of establishment within the territory of that entity to draw up all the details on invoices relating to cross-border transactions exclusively in the official language of that entity, failing which those invoices are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case T-672/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2014  — August Wolff and Remedia v Commission (Application for interim measures — Marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2014 — August Wolff and Remedia v Commission
   (Case T-672/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))
   (2015/C 081/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany); and Remedia d.o.o (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: P. Klappich, C. Schmidt and P. Arbeiter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová, A. Sipos and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision C (2014) 6030 final of 19 August 2014 concerning marketing authorisations for topical medicinal products for human use containing high concentrations of estradiol pursuant to Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 2 October 2014 is cancelled.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/1

         2009/C 267/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 256, 24.10.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 244, 10.10.2009

      OJ C 233, 26.9.2009

      OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

      OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

      OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

      OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-509/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission (Fisheries — Financial contribution for the implementation of control and surveillance systems — Decision not to reimburse expenditure incurred for the purchase of two Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV) — Article 296 EC — Directive 93/36/EEC — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/62

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-509/09) (1)

   (Fisheries - Financial contribution for the implementation of control and surveillance systems - Decision not to reimburse expenditure incurred for the purchase of two Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV) - Article 296 EC - Directive 93/36/EEC - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 225/138
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented: initially by L. Inez Fernandes, A. Trindade Mimoso and A. Miranda Boavida, and subsequently by I. Inez Fernandes, H. Leitão and V. Coelho, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision of 14 October 2009 declaring ineligible for European Union financial support under Commission Decision 2002/978/EC of 10 December 2002 on the eligibility of expenditure on a number of operations to be incurred by certain Member States in 2002 in implementing the control, inspection and surveillance systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 2002 L 338, p. 33) expenditure associated with the purchase of two Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV), to be used partly for the control and surveillance of fishing activities.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Action brought on 6 October 1995 by Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH against the Council of the European Union of the European Communities (Case T-184/95)

text:
No C 351 / 12          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                     of 9 November 1995
in Case T-346/94 : France-Aviation v. Commission of the
                                                                        ( 1 ) order the defendants to pay to it DM 2 279 859,69
                                                                              together with interest at the annual rate of 8 % from
                  European Communities ( ] )                                  9 August 1990 pro tanto in return for the assignment of
(Repayment of customs duty — Audi alteram partem —                            the balance of its claim against Iraq for the equivalent
                         Special situation)                                   balance due to it;
                           ( 95/C 351 /24 )
                                                                        ( 2 ) order the defendants to pay the costs;
                (Language of the case: French)                          ( 3 ) declare the judgment enforceable, alternatively,
                                                                              provisionally enforceable subject to the provision of a
In     Case  T-346/94 :        France-Aviation ,  established   at            bank guarantee .
Châteaufort ( France ), represented by Jean-Claude Cavaillé ,
of the Lyon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 62 Avenue Guillaume v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                       The applicant is a German undertaking engaged in the
Richard Wainwright and Jean-Francis Pasquier ) —                        provision of services relating to the implementation of
application for the annulment of Commission Decision                    infrastructure projects . At the time when Regulation ( EEC )
REM 4/94 of 18 July 1994 holding in response to a request               No 2340/90 entered into force , it was carrying out certain
from the French Government that repayment of import                     works in Iraq . That Regulation , which was enacted
duties was not justified in the applicant's case — the Court            following the military occupation of Kuwait by Iraq and in
of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: H.                    accordance with a resolution of the Security Council of the
Kirschner, acting as President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V.                United Nations , prohibited trade with Iraq and Kuwait. The
Tiili , Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on             applicant claims compensation for the damage suffered by it
9 November 1995 , in which it:                                          as a result of the economic reprisals adopted by the Iraqi
                                                                        authorities against the interests of the Member States of the
                                                                        Community in Iraq . Its capital invested in that country was
 1 . annuls Commission Decision REM 4/94 of 18 July                     blocked and its bank accounts were frozen; the measures
      1994, addressed to the French Republic,                           taken were in the nature of expropriation .
     Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes ;
                                                                        In the applicant's view, the liability of the Community
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                         institutions arises from the fact that they enacted the
                                                                         Regulation in question without providing for measures by
                                                                        way of compensation for the damage which the victims of
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                             possible economic reprisals on the part of the Iraqi
                                                                         authorities might suffer.
 (') O J No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                         That course of action is inconsistent with the right of
                                                                         ownership, which is a basic right the observance of which is
                                                                         to be ensured by the Community judicature, and which is
                                                                         enshrined as such in the Protocol to the European
                                                                         Convention on Human Rights .
 Action brought on 6 October 1995 by Dorsch Consult
 Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH against the Council of the
        European Union of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-l 84/95 )                              Action brought on 9 October 1995 by R against the
                            ( 95/C 351 /25 )                                     Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 87/95 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                                    ( 95/C 351 /26 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 An action against the Council of the European Union and
 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                      An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities on 6 October 1995 by Dorsch Consult                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH , represented by Karl M. Meessen               Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1995
 of Messrs Norr, Stiefenhofer & Lutz, Brussels, with an                   by R, residing in Lausanne ( Switzerland ), represented by
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar,
 Patrick Kinsch of Messrs Arendt & Medernach , 8— 10 Rue                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
 Mathias Hardt .                                                          Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 2 Rue Glesener .


title: Case T-176/04: Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/17

         Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-176/04)
   (2004/C 179/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio, represented by Alessandro Distante, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting his request;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action was brought by the applicant as a result of the fact that, on 1 April 2003, he submitted a request to the Commission in the following terms: (a) if a medical report drawn up by Dr M.P. Simonnet on the occasion of the medical check up which the Commission required him to undergo on 20 June 2002 exists, to have a certified copy thereof sent to him or to a doctor designated by him and, in the latter case, that he should be informed thereof in writing; (b) if the medical report does not exist, to be informed of that fact in writing; (c) if there is any reason to deny the requests at (a) and (b) above, to be informed thereof in writing.
   Following the implied rejection of the request, the applicant brought the present action.
   In support of his arguments, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:
   Breach of the law inasmuch as the official is entitled to have access to all data relating to him drawn up by agents of the defendant in the course of their duties and in their possession, and thus including the medical report.
   Breach of the applicant's right to health, in particular to his physical and mental health and of the institution's duty to have regard for his welfare.
   Breach of the obligation to provide reasons for decisions, as provided for in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
   Breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, inasmuch as the defendant had not the slightest regard for the interest of the applicant to have access to the medical report, or at least for such a report to be transmitted to a doctor of his choice, in particular in light of the fact that it is impossible to discern what interest of the service the defendant sought to protect, quod non, by its rejection of the request and of the complaint.


title: Case T-443/12: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2013 — Equinix (Germany) v OHIM — Acotel (ancotel.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ancotel. — Earlier Community figurative mark ACOTEL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2013 — Equinix (Germany) v OHIM — Acotel (ancotel.)
   (Case T-443/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ancotel. - Earlier Community figurative mark ACOTEL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 9/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Equinix (Germany) GmbH, formerly ancotel GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Truelsen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Acotel SpA (Rome, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2012 (Case R 1895/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Acotel SpA and ancotel GmbH, now Equinix (Germany) GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Equinix (Germany) GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of 26 September 2000 in Case C-443/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Milano (Italy)): Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food SpA (Technical standards and regulations — Obligations of notification and postponement of adoption — Applicability in civil proceedings)

text:
C 335/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
de Palma de Mallorca, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in                     23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time
the proceedings pending before that court between Bärbel                     Directive 83/189/EEC (OJ 1994 L 100, p. 30) — the Court,
Kachelmann and Bankhaus Hermann Lampe KG — on the                            composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, L. Sevón and
interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC               R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                 C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm,
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                       M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working                   General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                        which it has ruled:
L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and
M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                A national court is required, in civil proceedings between individuals
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    concerning contractual rights and obligations, to refuse to apply a
26 September 2000, on which it ruled:                                        national technical regulation which was adopted during a period of
                                                                             postponement of adoption prescribed in Article 9 of Council
Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of                    Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal              information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as
treatment for men and women as regards access to employment,                 amended by Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament and
vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be            the Council of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second
interpreted as not precluding an interpretation of a national rule,          time Directive 83/189.
such as that contained in Article 1(3) of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz
in the version in force until 30 September 1996, which proceeds on
the general basis that part-time workers are not to be compared with         (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
full-time workers when an employer has to proceed to selection on the
basis of social criteria when abolishing a part-time job on economic
grounds.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 September 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-478/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                        of 26 September 2000
                                                                             (Loans issued abroad — Prohibition of acquisition by Belgian
                                                                                residents)
in Case C-443/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretore di Milano (Italy)): Unilever Italia SpA v Central
                              Food SpA (1)                                                             (2000/C 335/23)
(Technical standards and regulations — Obligations of
notification and postponement of adoption — Applicability                                        (Language of the case: French)
                          in civil proceedings)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2000/C 335/22)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                        In Case C-478/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: H. Michard and B. Mongin v Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                             (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke) —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       application for a declaration that, by prohibiting the acquisition
                     in the European Court Reports)                          by persons resident in Belgium of securities of a loan issued
                                                                             abroad, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
In Case C-443/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Milano                56 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
(Magistrate, Milan) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón
pending before that court between Unilever Italia SpA and                    and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn
Central Food SpA — on the interpretation of Council Directive                (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for                      P. Jann, and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
the provision of information in the field of technical standards             General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as amended by Directive               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
94/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of                       which it:


title: Case C-449/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 8 October 2012 — L.J.A. van Luijk; other party: Burgemeester van Den Haag

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 8 October 2012 — L.J.A. van Luijk; other party: Burgemeester van Den Haag
   (Case C-449/12)
   2013/C 26/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: L.J.A. van Luijk

      Other party: Burgemeester van Den Haag

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), valid in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), is valid, must Article 4(3) of the Regulation, in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 7(f) of the Privacy Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of the Privacy Directive, be interpreted to mean that, when the Member States give effect to Regulation No 2252/2004, there should be a statutory guarantee that the biometric data collected and stored pursuant to that Regulation may not be collected, processed and used for any purposes other than the issuing of the document?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case C-250/07: Action brought on 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/17

         Action brought on 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-250/07)
   (2007/C 155/34)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not first publishing a call for competition and by being unjustifiably tardy in replying to the complainant's request that the reasons for the rejection of its tender be explained, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation, regarding a call for competition before a procedure for the submission of tenders is embarked upon, under Article 20(2) of Directive 93/38/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors and its obligation under Article 41(4) of Directive 93/38/EEC, as both interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission received a complaint relating to irregularities in the carrying out of a tender procedure announced by the Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (Public Power Corporation; ‘the DEI’) for the study, supply, transport, installation and bringing into operation of two steam-electric units for the steam electric station at Atherinolakkos, Crete.
   The Commission submits that the DEI failed to publish a call for competition, in breach of Article 20(2)(a) of Directive 93/38/EEC, which provides for exceptions provided that conditions that must be interpreted restrictively are met. Specifically, the Commission considers that the DEI interpreted improperly the term ‘suitable tenders’ and ‘substantial change in the conditions of the original contract’ in order to justify application of the exception under the foregoing provision.
   The Commission also considers that in the case in point it is not possible to rely on reasons of overriding and extreme urgency, or unforeseeable events, within the meaning of Article 20(2)(d), since they are not substantiated by the DEI.
   Finally, in the light of the Court's case-law, the Commission considers that there was significant delay regarding a statement of the reasons for rejecting the complainant's tender, in breach of Article 41(4) of Directive 93/38/EEC.
   Consequently, the Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 20(2) and 41(4) of Directive 93/38/EEC.

      (1)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.


title: Case C-531/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2011 — Angela Strehl v Bundesagentur für Arbeit Nürnberg

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/28

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2011 — Angela Strehl v Bundesagentur für Arbeit Nürnberg
      (Case C-531/11)
      (2012/C 25/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Hessisches Landessozialgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Angela Strehl

         Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit Nürnberg

         Question referred

      Is the first sentence of Article 68(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the wage or salary of a person who is not a genuine frontier worker (Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71) received by that person in respect of his last employment in another Member State is also to be taken into account by the competent institution of the Member State of residence during the calculation of benefits, if it is not followed by employment in the State of residence and if registration of unemployment only takes place there 11 months after the termination of the employment in the other Member State?

         (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, p. 2 English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971).


title: Case T-598/10: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul Internacional (LINEASUL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Cessation of existence of dispute — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/22

         Order of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul Internacional (LINEASUL)
   (Case T-598/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Cessation of existence of dispute - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 331/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Biodes SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manasul Internacional, SL (Ponferrada, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 1520/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Manasul Internacional, SL and Biodes, SL.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case C-515/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that Court of 12 November 2003 in the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
6.3.2004               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 59/3
1.   The appeal is dismissed.                                            3.     Must Article 1(2) of Decision 94/381/EC, read as far as
                                                                                necessary in conjunction with the provisions of Article 17
2.   Mr Martinez is ordered to pay the costs of the present                     of Directive 90/425/EEC and Article 17 of Directive 89/
     proceedings.                                                               662/EEC, be interpreted as giving rise to an obligation for
                                                                                the Commission or the Council to grant an authorisation
3.   Mr Martinez is also ordered to pay the Parliament’s costs in               as referred to therein if the system which the requesting
     connection with the application for interim measures in Case               Member State applies or intends to apply is in fact suitable
     C-488/01 P-R.                                                              for distinguishing between protein from ruminant and
                                                                                non-ruminant species?
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                 4.     To what extent does the answer to Question 3 entail a
                                                                                restriction of the right, or of the State’s obligation referred
                                                                                to in Question 1, to challenge a failure to grant an
                                                                                authorisation such as that at issue in this case under
                                                                                Article 175 of the EC Treaty (Article 232 EC), or to
                                                                                challenge a refusal to grant such an authorisation under
                                                                                Article 173 of the EC Treaty (Article 230 EC)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                         (Question 3 is relevant whether the question referred to
Nederlanden by order of that Court of 5 December 2003                           in Question 1 must be answered according to Netherlands
in the case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of                        national law or whether that answer must be determined
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) against                           according to Community law, in the latter case unless the
1. Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate                                answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative. Question 4 is
Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten Kate Produktie Maatschap-                          relevant only in the light of an answer to Question 2(b).)
                              pij BV
                         (Case C-511/03)
                          (2004/C 59/04)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                         Hamburg by order of that Court of 12 November 2003 in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der                                          Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Nederlanden of 5 December 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                                         (Case C-515/03)
case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries) against 1. Ten Kate Holding
Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten                                             (2004/C 59/05)
Kate Produktie Maatschappij BV on the following questions:
1.   Must the question whether, in a case such as this, the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     State has an obligation towards a citizen who has an                European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Ham-
     interest in it, such as Ten Kate, to make use of the legal          burg (Hamburg Finance Court) of 12 November 2003, received
     remedies available to it under Article 175 of the EC                at the Court Registry on 9 December 2003, for a preliminary
     Treaty (Article 232 EC) or Article 173 of the EC Treaty             ruling in the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
     (Article 230 EC) and, in the event of failure to comply             Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:
     with such an obligation, to pay compensation for the
     damage sustained as a consequence by the citizen con-
     cerned, be answered by reference to rules of Netherlands            Is Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) as amended
     national law or by reference to rules of Community law?             by Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 (2) to be interpreted as
                                                                         meaning that a product is considered to have been imported
2.   If the question referred to in Question 1 must be answered          if, after its release for free circulation in a non-member country,
     wholly or partly by reference to rules of Community law:            it undergoes substantial processing or working within the
                                                                         meaning of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92 (3) and
     (a)   Are there circumstances in which Community law                then is brought back into the Community upon drawback and
           can entail an obligation and liability as referred to in      payment of the normal import duties?
           that question?
     (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,           (1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 134, p. 14.
           which rules of Community law must be used as the
                                                                         (3) OJ L 302, p. 1.
           criterion when answering the question referred to
           in Question 1 in a specific case such as this?


title: Case T-384/13: Action brought on 26 July 2013 — Intermark/OHIM — Coca-Cola (RIENERGY Cola)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/50

         Action brought on 26 July 2013 — Intermark/OHIM — Coca-Cola (RIENERGY Cola)
   (Case T-384/13)
   2013/C 260/90
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intermark Srl (Stei, Romania) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the application, alter the contested decision of the defendant, order the dismissal of the opposition and order the registration of the applicant’s sign as a trade mark in its entirety;

               —

               In case the Court considers that it is inevitable to conduct another thorough analyses of the facts and evidence of the case, annul the contested decision of the defendant and remit the case to OHIM for further examination and new decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Cola’ for goods and services in classes 32 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 507 963

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations No 8 792 475, No 2 107 118 and No 8 709 818 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’ for goods and services in classes 30, 32, 33 and 35

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-714/16: Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/29

         Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)
   (Case T-714/16)
   (2016/C 462/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FLÜGEL’ — EU trade mark No 637 686

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2016 in Case R 282/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;

               —

               order EUIPO and Red Bull to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-336/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 — Manfred Seuke v Landkreis Mittweida

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 — Manfred Seuke v Landkreis Mittweida
   (Case C-336/06)
   (2006/C 261/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Manfred Seuke

      Defendant: Landkreis Mittweida
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a Member State permitted, in conformity with Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1), to require a holder of a driving licence issued in another Member State to apply to the national authority of the first Member State for recognition of the right to drive in its territory where the holder of the foreign EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first Member State, had his driving withdrawn or cancelled for some reason?
               If not:

               2.

               Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of the foreign EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or cancelled for some reason, if the ban on the issue of a new driving licence in that Member State, with which that measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence was issued in the other Member State and if it is to be concluded on the basis of objective evidence (non-residence in the Member State issuing the driving licence or the failure of an application for the national driving licence to be restored) that the only reason for acquiring the foreign EU driving licence was to circumvent the strict substantive requirements of national procedure for the restoration of a driving licence, particularly the need for a medical/psychological report?

      (1)  OJ L 237, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-402/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret in Skov Æg v Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S v Jette Mikkelsen, Michael Due Nielsen (Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Liability of the supplier of a defective product)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 10 January 2006
   in Case C-402/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret in Skov Æg v Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S v Jette Mikkelsen, Michael Due Nielsen (1)

   (Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Liability of the supplier of a defective product)
   (2006/C 48/07)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-402/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 26 September 2003, received at the Court on 29 September 2003, in the proceedings between Skov Æg and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and between Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Jette Mikkelsen, Michael Due Nielsen — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász and G. Arestis, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, in which it ruled:
   Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as:

               —

               precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable, beyond the cases listed exhaustively in Article 3(3) of the directive, for the no-fault liability which the directive establishes and imposes on the producer;

               —

               not precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable without restriction for the producer's fault-based liability.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Case C-504/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/22

         Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-504/11 P)
   2011/C 347/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl (represented by: T. Schaper, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant;

               —

               In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007;

               —

               In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in, inter alia, Case T-148/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission, in so far as it dismisses the action of 7 May 2007 against European Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Lifts and escalators) and concerns the appellant.
   The appellant alleges the lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the EC and FEU Treaties, the legal norms applicable in the implementation of those Treaties and misuse of powers and breach of fundamental rights, in a total of three grounds of appeal:

               First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties.

               Second, the appellants allege that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission Decision which held the appellants to be jointly liable on the basis of the group turnover of ThyssenKrupp AG. Thus the judgment infringes Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, the rule of law in the form of the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege, the principle of proportionate penalties, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the fault principle. The judgment is unlawful, in that it rests on the assumption that a subsidiary forms, with its parent company (and other companies in the group), a liability-sharing group in the form of an economic unit. Further and independent thereof, it infringes the principle of fault, since the appellants together with their parent companies were fined as jointly and severally liable participants. In the alternative, the appellants claim that the General Court has confirmed the joint and several liability despite the liability not being allocated within the group.

               Third, the appellants claim that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier and the Commission’s insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein.

               Fourth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellants.

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


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig Wünsche & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas - Export refund department (Case C-274/95)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/ 15
     action against the Council of the European Union and               the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
     the joined party, the Kingdom of Spain, for the                     1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     annulment of Article 115 of Council Regulation ( EC )              14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     No 40/94, and declare admissible the applicant's action            Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
     against the Council of the European Union and the                  — Export refund department — on the following
     Kingdom of Spain for the annulment of the said                     questions :
     Article 115 ,
                                                                        1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
— order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal .                         tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
                                                                             Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
The Court of First Instance wrongly held that the applicant                  content and consequently on the degree of its
                                                                             esterification ?
was affected solely in her objective capacity as a trade-mark
agent, in the same way as any other trade-mark agent                    2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the
finding himself, actually or potentially, in a comparable                    maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
situation as regards the use of the Dutch language . The                     esterified potato starch exported between April 1987
Court of First Instance overlooked, however, the fact that,                  and August 1987 so as not to preclude its classification
where a category of persons falls to be considered, it must                  within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of the Common
necessarily be a valid category. In the present case, the Court              Customs Tariff 1987 ?
of First Instance has created a category which is incapable of
existing, since, according to Regulation No 1 of the Council
determining the languages to be used by the European
Community, any person established in an EC country may                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
use his own language .                                                  by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig
                                                                        Wiinsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
                                                                                Export refund department
                                                                                Case C-2 76/95 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig                                     ( 95/C 268/33 )
                                                                                \
Wunsche & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Export                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                       refund department                                European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
                          Case C-2 74/95                                the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
                          ( 95/C 268/31 )                               1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 — Export refund department — on the following
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June                questions :
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
Ludwig Wunsche & Co v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                           tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
— Export refund department — on the following                                Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
questions :
                                                                             the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
                                                                             content and consequently on the degree of its
1 , does the tariff classification of esterified potato starch               esterification ?
     within subheading 3505 10 50 of the combined
     nomenclature depend on its acetyl content and                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: how high could the
     consequently on the degree of its esterification ?                      maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
                                                                             esterified potato starch exported between March 1987
2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the                 and December 1987 so as not to preclude its
     maximum acetyl content have been in the case of                         classification within tariff subheading 1 1.08 A IV of the
     esterified potato starch exported in February 1988 so as                Common Customs Tariff 1987 ?
     not to preclude its tariff classification within subheading
      1108 13 00 of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Appeal brought on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and
                                                                        Volker Lenz against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof               Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig            European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,
Wunsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —                           T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker
                   Export refund department                             Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case C-275 /95 )                                                    ( Case C-277/95 P )
                          ( 95/C 268/32 )                                                        ( 95/C 268/34 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An appeal against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-220/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 – Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO (PRO PLAYER)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/33

         Action brought on 9 May 2016 – Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO (PRO PLAYER)
   (Case T-220/16)
   (2016/C 232/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel, C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PRO PLAYER’ – Application for registration No 13 258 595

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1091/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.