title: Case C-225/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd (VAT — Directive 2006/112 — Exemptions — Article 151(1)(c) — Supply of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships in the territory of a Member State)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd
   (Case C-225/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112 - Exemptions - Article 151(1)(c) - Supply of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships in the territory of a Member State)
   2012/C 174/17
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Able UK Ltd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Article 151(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions relating to certain transactions treated as exports — Dismantling of obsolete US Navy ships carried out on the territory of a Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 151(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services such as that at issue in the main proceedings, made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and consisting in dismantling obsolete ships of the Navy of another State party to that treaty, is exempt from VAT under that provision only where

               —

               those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and

               —

               those services are supplied for members of the armed forces who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011


title: Case T-7/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE v EUIPO (LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ) (European Union trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE v EUIPO (LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ)
   (Case T-7/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 462/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE (Cogolin, France) (represented by: T. Cuche, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2015 (Case R 720/2015-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Union of figurative mark LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case T-322/10: Action brought on 30 July 2010 — Clasado v Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/25

         Action brought on 30 July 2010 — Clasado v Commission
   (Case T-322/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Clasado Ltd. (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented by: G.C. Facenna, Barrister, M.E. Guinness and M.C. Hann, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul those parts of Commission Regulations (EU) No 382/2010 (1) and No 384/2010 (2) of 5 May 2010 relating to health claims submitted by the applicant in respect of BimunoBT (BGOS) Prebiotic; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of those parts of Commission Regulations (EU) No 382/2010 and No 384/2010 of 5 May 2010, where it has been decided that health claims submitted by the applicant in respect of BimunoBT (BGOS) Prebiotic, a prebiotic food supplement designed to support the immune system and gastrointestinal health in humans, and reduce the risk of travellers’ diarrhoea, do not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (3), and thus should not be authorised.
   In support of his action, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement when it adopted the regulations in question, namely the procedure for comment by the applicant and public under Article 16(6) and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

               Secondly, in doing so the Commission also wrongly disregarded Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (4), which is designed to ensure that the European Food Safety Agency carries out its activities with a high level of transparency.

               In addition, by concluding that supplementary comments made by the European Food Safety Agency on the applicant’s applications on 4 December 2009 did not constitute an opinion, or part of the opinion, referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the regulations in question were adopted on the basis of an error of law.

               Furthermore, the Commission’s regulations whose annulment is being sought were adopted in violation of Clasado’s right to be heard under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (5), and its legitimate expectations.

               Finally, the Commission also infringed the right to sound administration, which is one of the general principles common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States, and in particular its obligation as the decision-maker under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 to apply diligent and independent scrutiny to all the relevant material before it.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 382/2010 of 5 May 2010 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2010 L 113, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 384/2010 of 5 May 2010 on the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2010 L 113, p. 6).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

      (5)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389).


title: Case T-769/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Picard v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/44

         Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Picard v Commission
   (Case T-769/16)
   (2017/C 014/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maxime Picard (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision setting, in advance, certain elements of the applicant’s pension rights or the failure to adopt such a decision required by the Staff Regulations as a result of the message sent on 4 January 2016 to the applicant by a case handler in Section 001 ‘Pensions’ of Unit 4 of the PMO informing him, in response to his query of the same date, that his pension rights had changed following his re-employment in Function Group II at 1 June 2014, his pensionable age having become 66 years old and the accrual rate of his pension rights having become is 1,8 % from 1 June 2014;

               —

               Annul if necessary the decision of 26 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Human Resources Directorate General of the Commission, inasmuch as it rejects the applicant’s claim of 1 April 2016 against the decision or lack of decision resulting from the message of 4 January 2016 as inadmissible in the absence of a measure adversely affecting him and, in the alternative, as unfounded;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the second and fifth paragraphs of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the second paragraph of Article 21 and the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Annex XIII thereto, applicable by virtue of Article 109 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) which vitiate the message of 4 January 2016, in that the date of entry into service taken into consideration for the application of those provisions of the regulation was 1 June 2014, the date on which the applicant entered Function Group II (‘FG II’) pursuant to Article 87(4) of the CEOS, whereas that date should have been 1 July 2008, the date on which he initially entered the Commission’s service as a member of the contractual staff in Function Group I.
   That plea in law is divided into two parts:

               —

               First part, alleging that Section 1 of Unit 4 of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘PMO’) and the Director of Directorate E of the Human Resources Directorate General of the Commission (DGHR) was incorrect to take the view, on the ground that the contract of 19 May 2014 by which the applicant entered FG II was new and had given rise to a fresh recruitment, that the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) and the second paragraph of Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations did not apply to him, so that paragraphs 5 and 2 of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations did apply to him, however, although the date of entry into service referred to in Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII is the date of first recruitment.

               —

               Second part, alleging an error also committed by Section 1 of the Unit of the PMO and the Director of Directorate E of the DGHR in taking the view, on the ground that the contract of 19 May 2014 by which the applicant entered GF II constituted a break in continuity in his career, that the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) and the second paragraph of Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations did not apply to him, so that paragraphs 5 and 2 of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations did apply to him, however, although that contract formed part of his continued career since it was intended to and had the effect of re-grading him without making any change to his duties other than a formal change.


title: Case C-266/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2014  — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.
   (Case C-266/14)
   2014/C 282/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Nacional — Sala de lo Social

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.)

      Defendant: Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.

      Question referred

   Must Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the time spent travelling at the beginning and end of the day by a worker who is not assigned to a fixed place of work but is required to travel every day from home to the premises of a different customer of the employer and to return home from the premises of another, different, customer (following a route or list that is determined for the worker by the employer the previous day), at all times within a geographical area that is more or less extensive, in the conditions of the main proceedings as described in the background to this question, constitutes ‘working time’ as that concept is defined in Article 2 of the directive or, conversely, must it be regarded as a ‘rest period’?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
   (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9)


title: Case C-286/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/48/EEC — Workers — Recognition of diplomas — Engineer)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-286/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/48/EEC - Workers - Recognition of diplomas - Engineer)
   (2008/C 313/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 3 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Professional qualification of engineer obtained in Italy not recognised in Spain
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Kingdom of Spain,

                           —

                           by refusing to recognise the professional qualifications of engineer obtained in Italy on the basis of university education and training provided solely in Spain, and

                           —

                           by making admission to internal exams for promotion in the civil service subject in the case of engineers with professional qualifications obtained in another Member State to academic recognition of those qualifications,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, and in particular Article 3 thereof.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-302/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/10

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission
   (Case T-302/09)
   2009/C 244/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Comité national interprofessionnel de la pomme de terre (CNIPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) to be taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.
   In addition, the applicant submits that there is a breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since the Commission dealt in generally and in the same way with a number of distinct CVL schemes.

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.


title: Election of Presidents of the Chambers

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/40

         Election of Presidents of the Chambers
   (2007/C 269/69)
   On 20 September 2007, the Court of First Instance, in accordance with Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure, elected Ms Tiili, Mr Azizi, Mr Meij, Mr Vilaras, Mr Forwood, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Czúcz and Ms Pelikánová as Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges and of the Chambers composed of three Judges for the period from 20 September 2007 to 31 August 2010.


title: Case T-422/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — CPME and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand — Expiry review — Commission proposal to renew measures — Council decision to terminate the review without imposing measures — Action for annulment — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Likelihood of recurrence of material injury — Article 21(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 — Interest of the European Union — Manifest errors of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Action for damages)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — CPME and Others v Council
   (Case T-422/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand - Expiry review - Commission proposal to renew measures - Council decision to terminate the review without imposing measures - Action for annulment - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Likelihood of recurrence of material injury - Article 21(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Interest of the European Union - Manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Action for damages))
   (2017/C 161/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) (Brussels, Belgium) and the other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to the judgment (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents, assisted by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: European Commission (represented by J.-F. Brakeland, A. Demeneix and M. França, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW) (Brussels, Belgium), Caiba, SA (Paterna, Spain), Coca-Cola Enterprises Belgium (CCEB) (Anderlecht, Belgium), Danone (Paris, France), Nestlé Waters Management & Technology (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France), Pepsico International Ltd (London, United Kingdom), and Refresco Gerber BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: E. McGovern, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application (i) under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2013 L 136, p. 12), inasmuch as it rejected the proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand and terminated the review proceeding concerning those imports, and, (ii), under Article 268 TFEU for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand, inasmuch as it rejected the proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand and terminated the review proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from those three countries;

               2.

               Dismisses the claims for compensation;

               3.

               Orders the Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME), Cepsa Química, SA, Equipolymers Srl, Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o., Lotte Chemical UK Ltd, M & G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet, SA, Ottana Polimeri Srl, UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB Neo Group and UAB Orion Global pet to bear their own costs, except for those referred to in paragraph (5) below;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs;

               5.

               Orders the European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW), Caiba, SA, Coca-Cola Enterprises Belgium (CCEB), Danone, Nestlé Waters Management & Technology, Pepsico International Ltd and Refresco Gerber BV to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the applicants by virtue of their intervention;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case C-227/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 22 June 2009 — Antonino Accardo and Others v Comune di Torino

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 22 June 2009 — Antonino Accardo and Others v Comune di Torino
   (Case C-227/09)
   2009/C 205/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Antonino Accardo, Viola Acella, Antonio Acuto, Domenico Ambrisi, Paolo Battaglino, Riccardo Bevilacqua, Fabrizio Bolla, Daniela Bottazzi, Roberto Brossa, Luigi Calabró, Roberto Cammardella, Michelangelo Capaldi, Giorgio Castellaro, Davide Cauda, Tatiana Chiampo, Alessia Ciaravino, Alessandro Cicero, Paolo Curtabbi, Paolo Dabbene, Mauro D’Angelo, Giancarlo Destefanis, Mario Di Brita, Bianca Di Capua, Michele Di Chio, Marina Ferrero, Gino Forlani, Giovanni Galvagno, Sonia Genisio, Laura Dora Genovese, Sonia Gili, Maria Gualtieri, Gaetano La Spina, Maurizio Loggia, Giovanni Lucchetta, Sandra Magoga, Manuela Manfredi, Fabrizio Maschio, Sonia Mignone, Daniela Minissale, Domenico Mondello, Veronica Mossa, Plinio Paduano, Barbaro Pallavidino, Monica Palumbo, Michele Paschetto, Federica Peinetti, Nadia Pizzimenti, Gianluca Ponzo, Enrico Pozzato, Gaetano Puccio, Danilo Ranzani, Piergianni Risso, Luisa Rossi, Paola Sabia, Renzo Sangiano, Davide Scagno, Paola Settia, Raffaella Sottoriva, Rossana Trancuccio, Fulvia Varotto, Giampiero Zucca, Fabrizio Lacognata, Guido Mandia, Luigi Rigon, Daniele Sgavetti

      Defendant: Comune di Torino

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of [Articles 5, 17 and 18 of Council Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time], are those provisions capable of being applied directly in the legal order of a Member State, irrespective of whether formal transposition has taken place or irrespective of national rules which restrict their applicability to certain occupations, in a dispute in which reference is made to collective measures adopted by both sides of industry which are in conformity with that directive?

               2.

               Are the courts of that Member State in any event under a duty, irrespective of such direct application, to use a directive which has not yet been transposed into national law or the operation of which, following transposition, appears to be precluded by national rules, as an aid to construction of the national law and thus as a basis for resolving possible doubts as to interpretation?

               3.

               Are the courts of that Member State precluded from declaring conduct unlawful, and on that basis awarding damages on grounds of unfairness and unlawfulness, where the conduct in question appears to be authorised by both sides of industry and such authorisation is consistent with Community law, albeit in the form of the directive which has not yet been transposed into national law?

               4.

               Should Article 17(3) of … Directive [93/104] be construed as permitting — on its own terms, and thus wholly independently of Article 17(2) thereof and the list of occupations and professions set out therein — the collective measures adopted by both sides of industry and the provision made thereunder for derogations in relation to weekly rest periods?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18.


title: Case T-255/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Ciga and Others v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/44

         Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Ciga and Others v Commission
   (Case T-255/00) (1)

   2011/C 347/79
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case F-3/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Roberto Ridolfi v Commission of the European Communities (Civil service — Officials — Officials posted to non-Member States — Education allowance with interest — Reassignment to headquarters — Retraining — Period of normal secondment — Articles 3 and 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/77

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Roberto Ridolfi v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-3/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Officials posted to non-Member States - Education allowance with interest - Reassignment to headquarters - Retraining - Period of normal secondment - Articles 3 and 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 24/143
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision to refuse the applicant entitlement to reuse and retain the education allowance together with interest in respect of his two eldest children

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ridolfi to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009, p. 53.


title: Case F-40/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Annual leave — Absence without prior permission after annual leave used up — Forfeiture of remuneration — Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-40/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Annual leave - Absence without prior permission after annual leave used up - Forfeiture of remuneration - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)
   2011/C 252/111
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision stating that the applicant had, without prior permission, exceeded his annual leave entitlement for 2009 by 5,5 days

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr. Lebedef’s action;

               2.

               Orders Mr. Lebedef to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, of 31/07/10, p. 55.


title: Case T-262/01: Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen Sachau against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 3/40                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.1.2002
Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen Sachau                       The applicant submits that the decision is defective in form
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     and in content, inter alia because the Commission exceeded the
                                                                         period allowed for replying to the application and the decision
                                                                         contains no statement of reasons. Furthermore, the decision is
                         (Case T-262/01)                                 contrary to the principles of proper administration and equal
                                                                         treatment, to the proper exercise of discretion and to the duty
                                                                         to have regard for the interests of officials.
                          (2002/C 3/68)
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Action brought on 17 October 2001 by Petros Mavromi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               khalis against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen                                                       ties
Sachau, resident in Kassel, Germany, represented by Dörte
Fouquet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case T-263/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (2002/C 3/69)
—     declare that the decision dated 19 December 2000 sent                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
      by the defendant to the applicant is inoperative;
—     declare that the defendant is to reimburse to the applicant
      all costs and expenditure which he has incurred as a               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      result of the period allowed for replying to the application       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      for continued employment, which expired on 19 Decem-               European Communities on 17 October 2001 by Petros
      ber 2000, being clearly exceeded by the defendant in that          Mavromikhalis, a Commission official, resident in Brussels,
      it did not formulate the decision until 19 December                represented by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, Lawyer, with an
      2000;                                                              address for service in Brussels.
—     declare that the applicant is to be engaged by the
      defendant with immediate effect on a contract of unlimi-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      ted duration retroactively in Post COM/R/5698/00-
      A8/A5 ST or in a comparable post in accordance with                —    grant the application as well founded in law and in
      the applicant’s professional qualifications;                            substance;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings            —    annul:
      including the applicant’s costs.
                                                                              —     the implied decision of the European Commission
                                                                                by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint seek-
                                                                                ing reconsideration of his placement in Grade A 5
                                                                                instead of Grade A 4 on the basis of Article 31(2) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     the Staff Regulations;
                                                                              —     in the alternative, the implied decision of the
The applicant submitted his candidature for Post                                    European Commission by which it rejected the
COM/R/5698/00-A8/A5 ST at the Joint Research Centre in                              applicant’s complaint seeking placement at Step 2
Ispra. At that time he was engaged in that post on a fixed-term                     with additional seniority of 5,5 months instead of at
contract. His contract expired on 30 September 2000 and,                            Step 1 on the basis of Article 32 of the Staff
since it had been indicated to him internally that he would be                      Regulations retroactively from the date of his
able to continue in the post, he decided to remain in Ispra in                      appointment;
order to be available to be called by the Commission. He did
not receive the Commission’s rejection until the decision of             —    order the defendant to pay the costs irrespective of the
19 December 2000.                                                             outcome of the case.


title: Case C-438/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 22(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction — Disputes in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property — Nature of the right of pre-emption — Article 27(1) — Lis pendens — Concept of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Relationship between Articles 22(1) and 27(1) — Article 28(1) — Related actions — Criteria for assessing whether to stay proceedings)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber
   (Case C-438/12) (1)

   ((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 22(1) - Exclusive jurisdiction - Disputes in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property - Nature of the right of pre-emption - Article 27(1) - Lis pendens - Concept of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties - Relationship between Articles 22(1) and 27(1) - Article 28(1) - Related actions - Criteria for assessing whether to stay proceedings))
   2014/C 159/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Irmengard Weber

      Defendant: Mechthilde Weber

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Articles 22(1), 27, 28 and 35(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Lis pendens — Proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties brought in the courts of different Member States — Interpretation of ‘the same cause of action’ and ‘the same parties’ — Situation in which the first action was brought by a third party against both parties and the second action was brought by one of those parties against the other

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that there falls within the category of proceedings which have as their object ‘rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision an action such as that brought in the present case before the courts of another Member State, seeking a declaration of invalidity of the exercise of a right of pre-emption attaching to that property and which produces effects with respect to all the parties;

               2)

               Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, before staying its proceedings in accordance with that provision, the court second seised is required to examine whether, by reason of a failure to take into consideration the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 22(1) thereof, the decision of the court first seised will be recognised in the other Member States in accordance with Article 35(1) of that regulation

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case C-125/99 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 1999 by the Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 28 January 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-264/97 between D, supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 188/14              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                      Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, by order of that
                                                                      court of 30 March 1999 in the case of Johann Kappel v
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
The Member States are required by the binding character of                                     (Case C-128/99)
the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC
Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives
into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for                                (1999/C 188/32)
that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately
to the Commission. That period expired on 30 June 1996
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichtsh-
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
                                                                      of (Supreme Court), Austria, of 30 March 1999, which was
into national law.
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1999, for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Kappel v Pensionsver-
(1) OJ No L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.                                   sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter, on the following questions:
                                                                      1. Is Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) to be interpreted
                                                                           as allowing Member States to determine different pension-
                                                                           able ages only for pension rights which are granted
                                                                           exclusively on the basis of the risk of old age, or is that
                                                                           derogation applicable also to pension rights which are
                                                                           granted only from a specified age but in addition are
Appeal brought on 15 April 1999 by the Kingdom of                          granted only on account of invalidity (reduced capacity for
Sweden against the judgment delivered on 28 January                        work)?
1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-264/97
between D, supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and                    2. Is Article 7(1)(a) and (2) of Directive 79/7/EEC to be
              the Council of the European Union                            interpreted as allowing a Member State to alter a previously
                                                                           existing identical provision on pensionable age (in this case
                                                                           completion of the 55th year for men and women) after the
                       (Case C-125/99 P)                                   end of the transposition period, in such a way that a
                                                                           different pensionable age for men and women (in this case
                        (1999/C 188/31)                                    completion of the 57th year for men and the 55th year for
                                                                           women) is now determined?
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 1999
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-264/97 between D,                  (1) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the
European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Kingdom
of Sweden, represented by Lotty Nordling, Legal Adviser, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy,
2 Rue Heinrich Heine.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 15 April 1999 by the Federal Republic
                                                                      of Germany against the Commission of the European
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and                                     Communities
    declare void the decision of the Council refusing to grant
    the benefits claimed by D;
                                                                                (Case C-129/99)
— order the Council to reimburse the costs incurred by
    Sweden in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
                                                                                (1999/C 188/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Disregard of Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in      Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Federal Republic of
that a meaning has been applied to the expressions ‘married’          Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing and Claus-
and ‘spouse’ which does not take into account the family              Dieter Quassowski, Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Postfach
situation and civil status of officials under the national            13 08, D-53003 Bonn.
legislation applicable to them, and inasmuch as officials living
in a situation of registered partnership are not treated in the
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
same way as married officials.
                                                                      •    annul the Commission Decision of 3 February 1999 —
                                                                           C(99)209 final — on the clearance of the accounts


title: Case T-343/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Cipriani/OHIM — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/29

         Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Cipriani/OHIM — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)
   (Case T-343/14)
   2014/C 261/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arrigo Cipriani (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia, and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani (Venice, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Cancel the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2014 in Case R 224/2012-4 and declare the nullity, pursuant to Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in connection with Article 8.3 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property, of the trademark ‘Cipriani’ No 115824 held by Hotel Cipriani for all goods and services for which the trademark is registered or;

               —

               Subordinately, for all goods or services other than ‘hotels and hotel reservation’ services or;

               —

               Subordinately in relation to services of ‘restaurants, cafeterias, public eating places, bars, catering, delivery of drinks and beverages for immediate consumption’ or;

               —

               Remit the proceedings to the OHIM so that it may issue that declaration of nullity;

               —

               Order that Mr Arrigo Cipriani’s costs for these proceedings be entirely reimbursed.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘CIPRIANI’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark No 115 824

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Hotel Cipriani

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The trade mark had been registered in bad faith and infringed the right to a renowned personal name ‘CIPRIANI’

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Violation of Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to article 8.3 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property;

               —

               Violation of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


29.11.2003            EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 289/19
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Removal from the register of Case C-194/02 (1)
the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                                     (2003/C 289/39)
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
      biotechnological inventions (1) or, in any event, by not         By order of 30 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      communicating those provisions to the Commission, the            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations          register of Case C-194/02: Commission of the European
      under Article 15 of that directive;                              Communities v Republic of Austria.
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit fixed for the transposition of the directive
expired on 30 July 2000.
(1) OJ L 213 of 30.07.1998, p. 13.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-226/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/40)
                         (2003/C 289/38)
By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice         By order of 8 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/02: Commission of the European
                                                                       register of Case C-226/02 Reference for a preliminary ruling by
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                     the Østre Landsret): Remedan af 1985 ApS v Skatteministeriet.
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case C-428/10: Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-428/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/59
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-364/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Lebedef v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Annual leave — Half-time secondment for union representation — Unauthorised absence — Deduction of days from annual leave entitlement — Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case T-364/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Annual leave - Half-time secondment for union representation - Unauthorised absence - Deduction of days from annual leave entitlement - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)
   2011/C 38/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08 Lebedef v Commission ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, with the request that the judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Giorgio Lebedef to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 282 of 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-50/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Rostock by order of that Court of 5 February 2003 in the procurement review procedure 1. Simrad GmbH & Co. KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS against Ministry for Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

text:
10.5.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 112/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Declares that, in adopting a measure transposing Council
                                                                                Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
                                                                                natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which:
                         (Third Chamber)
                                                                                —     excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of
                         of 20 March 2003                                                the implications for the environment projects other than
                                                                                those listed in the Italian legislation implementing direc-
                                                                                tives on environmental impact assessment that are likely
in Case C-143/02: Commission of the European Communi-                                    to have a significant effect on sites of Community
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                         importance,
                                                                                —     fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                             Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild                                      respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterioration
                          fauna and flora)                                               of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or
                                                                                disturbance of the species for which the areas were
                                                                                designated, in so far as such disturbance could be
                          (2003/C 112/12)                                                significant in relation to the objectives of Directive 92/
                                                                                43,
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                —     fails to provide that the conservation measures referred to
                                                                                in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites referred
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                   to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive;
In Case C-143/02, Commission of the European Communities                     2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agents: U. Leanza and M. Fiorilli): Application for a declar-
ation that, in adopting legislation transposing Council Direc-               (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
tive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7),
which:
—     excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of
      the implications for the environment projects other
      than those listed in the Italian legislation implementing
      directives on environmental impact assessment that are
      likely to have a significant effect on sites of Community              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
      importance,                                                            icht Rostock by order of that Court of 5 February 2003 in
                                                                             the procurement review procedure 1. Simrad GmbH &
                                                                             Co. KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS against Ministry for
—     fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the
                                                                             Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
      Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in
                                                                                mern
      respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterio-
      ration of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or
      disturbance of the species for which the areas were                                                (Case C-50/03)
      designated, in so far as such disturbance could be
      significant in relation to the objectives of Directive 92/
      43,                                                                                (2003/C 112/13)
—     fails to provide that the conservation measures referred
      to in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites
      referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              Rostock (Higher Regional Court, Rostock) of 5 February 2003,
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive, the Court (Third Chamber),            received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2003, for a
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     preliminary ruling in the procurement review procedure
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,                     1. Simrad GmbH & Co. KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS against
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  Ministry for Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-
on 20 March 2003, in which it:                                               Vorpommern on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/8                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Does an agreement to amend an existing public supply                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
contract, to the effect that different goods are to be supplied        für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that Court of
from those originally agreed, constitute a public supply               29 January 2003 in the case of Austroplant-Arzneimittel
contract for the purposes of Article 1(a) of Council Directive                       GesmbH against Austrian Republic
93/36/EEC ( 1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
the award of public supply contracts (‘Directive 93/36’) in
respect of which an invitation to tender must be issued where:
                                                                                (Case C-54/03)
1.    the value of the goods to which the amendment relates
      exceeds the de minimis amount referred to in
      Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 93/36 and                                                    (2003/C 112/15)
2.    as regards the goods affected by the amendment, the
      amendment changes both the supplier and, in a material
      way, the specification of those goods?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.                                       European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
                                                                       Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna Regional Civil Court) of
                                                                       29 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on 11 February
                                                                       2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Austroplant-
                                                                       Arzneimittel GesmbH against Austrian Republic on the follow-
                                                                       ing questions:
                                                                       1.    Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
                                                                             relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                        prices of medicinal products for human use and their
Löbau by order of that Court of 21 October 2002 in the                       inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
   criminal proceedings against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu                     systems (OJ 1989 L 40, 8), apart from the remedy already
                                                                             criticised in the Court’s judgment of 27 November 2001
                                                                             in Case C-424/99 ( 1), to be interpreted as meaning that
                          (Case C-51/03)                                     the national provisions set out below are incompatible
                                                                             therewith?
                         (2003/C 112/14)                                     The national implementing provisions concerned are
                                                                             Paragraph 31(3)(12) ASVG in the version published in
                                                                             BGBl I 99/2001 and the Procedure for the compilation
                                                                             of the register of medicinal products under Para-
                                                                             graph 31(3)(12) ASVG (VOHMV), Soziale Sicherheit 11/
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       1998, Amtliche Verlautbarung No 104/1998.
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Löbau
(Local Court, Löbau) of 21 October 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling           2.    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
in the criminal proceedings against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu
on the following question on the following point of interpret-
                                                                             Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
ation of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March
                                                                             relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
2001 (1):
                                                                             prices of medicinal products for human use and their
                                                                             inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
                                                                             systems so precise, clear and definite that the national
Must Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and Annex II              legislator has no scope for discretion when transposing it
of the above regulation be interpreted as meaning that as from               into national law?
the entry into force of that regulation Romanian nationals
now only for a specified time require a visa for entry and stay
in Member States of the European Community for a period                3.    If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
not exceeding three months?
                                                                             Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
                                                                             relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
( 1) OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p. 1.                                             prices of medicinal products for human use and their
                                                                             inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
                                                                             systems intended to confer a direct right on the applicant
                                                                             in the proceedings in the main case in this instance?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2000 in Case C-178/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles): Barry Banks and Others v Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the legislation applicable — Scope of the E 101 Certificate)

text:
C 163/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.6.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 28 March 2000                                                          of 30 March 2000
in Case C-309/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                       in Case C-178/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
from the Finanzgericht München): Holz Geenen GmbH v                        the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles): Barry Banks and
                Oberfinanzdirektion München (1)                                       Others v Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie (1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifi-
cation in the combined nomenclature — Regulation (EC) No                   (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the
1509/97 — Rectangular wood blocks used in the construc-                       legislation applicable — Scope of the E 101 Certificate)
                      tion of window frames)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/03)
                           (2000/C 163/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-178/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-309/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal du
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                  Travail de Bruxelles, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
München, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              proceedings pending before that court between Barry Banks
pending before that court between Holz Geenen GmbH                         and Others and Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie — on the
and Oberfinanzdirektion München — on the validity of                       interpretation of Article 14a(1)(a) and Article 14c of Council
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 of 30 July 1997                      Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined             application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
nomenclature (OJ 1997 L 204, p. 8) — the Court (First                      self-employed persons and to members of their families
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of                moving within the Community, and of Articles 11a and 12a(7)
the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-                  fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March                1408/71, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
2000, in which it has ruled:                                               (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), and
                                                                           subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/86 of
                                                                           11 December 1986 (OJ 1986 L 355, p. 5) — the Court (Fifth
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 of 30 July 1997                      Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined             Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)
nomenclature is invalid in so far as point 2 of the Annex thereto          and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
classifies ‘Rectangular wood blocks, 48 or 85 mm wide x 72 mm              H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
high, used in the construction of window frames, consisting of layers      a judgment on 30 March 2000, in which it held:
of wood glued together with the grain running parallel and with
slightly rounded edges’ under subheading 4418 90 10 of the
combined nomenclature.                                                     1. The term ‘work’ in Article 14a(1)(a) of Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                                social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                                persons and to members of their families moving within the
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
                                                                                Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, and subsequently by
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/86 of 11 December 1986,
                                                                                covers any performance of work, whether in an employed or self-
                                                                                employed capacity.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/3
2. So long as it has not been withdrawn or declared invalid, an E          B.J. Drijber) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
    101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 11a of Council      J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber,
    Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972, fixing                    acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón,
    the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71,                  J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;
    as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83 and                    A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
    subsequently by Regulation No 3811/86, is binding both upon            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March 2000, in
    the competent institution of the Member State to which a self-         which it:
    employed person goes in order to carry out a work assignment
    and the person who calls upon the services of that worker.             1. Dismisses the appeal;
3. The E 101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 11a of         2. Orders Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen
    Regulation No 574/72, may have retroactive effect.                          Aalsmeer BA (VBA) to bear its own costs and to pay those of
                                                                                Florimex BV and Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloem-
                                                                                kwekerijprodukten (VGB) relating to the proceedings before the
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                      Court of Justice;
                                                                           3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 295 of 30.3.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 30 March 2000                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-265/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenig-                                               (Fifth Chamber)
de Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Florimex BV
                           and Others (1)
                                                                                of 30 March 2000
(Appeal — Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint
— Compatibility with Article 2 of Regulation No 26 of a                    in Case C-266/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenig-
fee charged to external suppliers on floricultural products                de Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Vereniging
supplied to wholesalers established on the premises of a                   van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (VGB),
 cooperative society of auctioneers — Statement of reasons)                                            Florimex BV (1)
                          (2000/C 163/04)                                  (Appeal — Competition — Closure of procedure on a
                                                                           complaint in the absence of a response by the complainants
                                                                           within the time-limit notified to them — Compatibility with
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          Article 85(1) of the Treaty of a fee levied on suppliers
                                                                           who have concluded agreements relating to the delivery of
                                                                           floricultural products to undertakings established on the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     premises of a cooperative auction society — Compatibility
                   in the European Court Reports)                          with Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty of an exclusive purchase
                                                                           obligation accepted by certain wholesalers reselling such
                                                                           products to retailers in a specific trading area forming part
In Case C-265/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde                   of the same premises — Discrimination — Effect on trade
Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA), established in Aalsmeer                between Member States — Assessment by reference to a
(Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels              body of rules taken as a whole — Lack of appreciable effect)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue — Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                               (2000/C 163/05)
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
14 May 1997 in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 Florimex
and VGB v Commission [1997] ECR II-693, seeking to have                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
that judgment set aside, the other parties to be proceedings
being: Florimex BV and Others and Vereniging van Groothan-
delaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten (VGB), established in                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Aalsmeer (Netherlands), represented by J.A.M.P. Keijser, of the                                in the European Court Reports)
Nijmegen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaïde and                   In Case C-266/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde
Commission of the European Communities, (Agent:                            Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA), established in Aalsmeer


title: Case C-402/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-402/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 113/27
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and V. Kovačič, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: A. Vran, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 56)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case C-166/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 13 April 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 13 April 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs
   (Case C-166/15)
   (2015/C 205/29)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija

      Party to the main proceedings

      Criminal proceedings against: Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs

      Other parties in the case: Finanšu un ekonomisko noziegumu izmeklēšanas prokuratūra, Microsoft Corporation

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Articles 5(1) and 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, may a person who has acquired a computer program with a ‘used’ licence on a non-original disk, which works and is not used by any other user, rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of that computer program, the first purchaser of which acquired it from the rightholder with the original disk, which however has been damaged, when the first purchaser has erased his copy and no longer uses it?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, then, does a person who may rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of the computer program have the right to resell that computer program on a non-original disk to a third person, in accordance with Articles 4(2) and 5(2) of Directive 2009/24?

      (1)  Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16).


title: Case C-185/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 April 2017 — Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna v Saksa OOD

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 April 2017 — Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna v Saksa OOD
   (Case C-185/17)
   (2017/C 213/27)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Saksa OOD

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the rule provided for in the explanatory notes in table 3 of standard EN 590 (now EN 590:2014), which states that the ‘EU Common Customs Tariff definition of gas oil may not apply to the grades defined for use in arctic or severe winter climates’, mean that, in respect of that type of fuel, it is possible that the general rules contained in additional note 2(d) and (e) to Chapter 27 of the Common Customs Tariff do not apply for the purposes of tariff classification of the goods?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and if it is established that the goods in respect of which customs duties arise correspond to the definition of diesel for use in ‘arctic or severe winter climates’ in accordance with the criteria set out in Standard EN 590, must that fuel be classified under tariff subheading 2710 19 43 of the Combined Nomenclature, which corresponds to ‘gas oils’, or must the general rules contained in additional note 2(d) and (e) to Chapter 27 of the Common Customs Tariff apply?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what are the criteria to be used to determine when the definition of gas oil under the Customs Tariff of the European Union should apply and when it is necessary to use the requirements and test methods in accordance with standard EN 590, for the purposes of the tariff classification of the goods?

               4.

               Are the methods and analysis indicators set out in additional note 2(d) and (e) to Chapter 27 of the Common Customs Tariff sufficient in order to characterise a product fully and accurately as a ‘gas oil’, or is it necessary to take into consideration all of the product’s characteristic chemical indicators?


title: Case T-363/12: Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC natural beauty)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/27

         Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC natural beauty)
   (Case T-363/12)
   2012/C 355/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, legal adviser)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clinique Laboratories LLC (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2012 (Case R 1134/2001-2) refusing registration of ‘CLEANIC natural beauty’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16;

               —

               amend the contested decision by registration of the trade mark for all the goods and services applied for;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Harper Hygienics

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘CLEANIC natural beauty’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clinique Laboratories LLC

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No 54 429 for goods in Classes 3, 14, 25 and 42 and No 2 294 429 for goods in Classes 35 and 42, and national (Polish) mark No 51 732 for goods in Classes 3 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers, and infringement of Article 8(5) of that regulation

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-12/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2012 — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2012 — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.
   (Case C-12/12)
   2012/C 89/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Colloseum Holding AG

      Defendant: Levi Strauss & Co.

      Questions referred

   Is Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that:

               1.

               a trade mark which is part of a composite mark and has become distinctive only as a result of the use of the composite mark can be used in such a way as to preserve the rights attached to it if the composite mark alone is used?

               2.

               a trade mark is being used in such a way as to preserve the rights attached to it if it is used only together with another mark, the public sees independent signs in the two marks and, in addition, both marks are registered together as a trade mark?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case F-23/07 RENV-RX: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 March 2011 — M v Agence européenne des médicaments (EMEA)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 March 2011 — M v Agence européenne des médicaments (EMEA)
   (Case F-23/07 RENV-RX) (1)

   2011/C 160/45
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 35.


title: Case C-75/14: Order of the President of the Court of 18 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila — Spain) — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, SA v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero, María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila — Spain) — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, SA v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero, María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez
   (Case C-75/14) (1)

   (2015/C 213/32)
   Language of the case: Spain
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-285/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Heinrich Stefan Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Agriculture — Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999 and (EC) No 753/2002 — Common organisation of the market in wine — Description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products — Protection of traditional terms — Translation into another language — Use for wines from another producing Member State)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Heinrich Stefan Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
   (Case C-285/06) (1)

   (Agriculture - Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999 and (EC) No 753/2002 - Common organisation of the market in wine - Description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products - Protection of traditional terms - Translation into another language - Use for wines from another producing Member State)
   (2008/C 116/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heinrich Stefan Schneider

      Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

      Intervening party: Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 47(2)(b) and (c) and the fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) and point (B)(3) of Annex VII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1512/2005 of 15 September 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2005 L 241, p. 15), and of Articles 23 and 24 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1) — Prohibition against imitation or evocation of protected additional traditional terms — Possibility of using such a term in a language other than that of the protected traditional term or for wines from a Member State other than those of the protected traditional term — Use of the French language terms ‘Réserve’ or ‘Grande réserve’ or the German language terms ‘Reserve’ or ‘Privat-Reserve’ for German wines
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 47(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, in conjunction with point (B)(3) of Annex VII thereto and Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Regulation No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1512/2005 of 15 September 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the use of a particular relating to the production or ageing method or the quality of a wine may be permitted under those provisions only if there is no risk that it will mislead the persons to whom it is addressed by creating confusion between that particular and the other traditional terms referred to in the fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) of Annex VII to Regulation No 1493/1999 and Article 23 of Regulation No 753/2002. It is for the national court to assess whether the terms in issue in the main proceedings are likely to give rise to such a risk.

               2.

               Article 24(2)(a) of Regulation No 753/2002, as amended by Regulation No 1512/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that there may be imitation or evocation of a traditional term within the meaning of that provision where that term is translated into a language other than that in which that term is given in Annex III to that regulation, if that translation is likely to cause confusion or to mislead the persons to whom it is addressed. It is for the national court to examine whether that is the case in the dispute before it.

               3.

               Article 24(2) of Regulation No 753/2002, as amended by Regulation No 1512/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that a traditional term listed in Annex III to that regulation is protected both with regard to wines of the same category/categories from the same producer Member State as that traditional term and with regard to wines of the same category/categories from other producer Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.