title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2002 in Case T-163/02 R: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 — Admissibility of main action — Urgency)

text:
26.10.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 261/15
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               berg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer, with
                              INSTANCE                                     an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application
                           of 12 July 2002                                 for suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission
                                                                           of 5 December 2001 by which, amongst other things, it resiled
                                                                           from the framework agreement of 20 September 1974
in Case T-163/02 R: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH
Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European                        concerning relations between the Commission and trade union
                            Communities                                    and professional organisations and adopted the operational
                                                                           rules concerning the levels, process and procedures of consul-
                                                                           tation agreed between the Commission and the majority of
(Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC)                        trade union and professional organisations on 19 January
 No 560/2002 — Admissibility of main action — Urgency)                     2000 — the President of the Court of First Instance has made
                                                                           an order on 31 July 2002, in which he:
                          (2002/C 261/27)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          1.    Dismisses the application for interim measures;
In Case T-163/02 R: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhan-                 2.    Orders that costs are reserved.
del, established in Planegg (Germany), Jepsen Stahl GmbH,
established in Nittendorf (Germany), LNS — Lothar Niemeyer
Stahlhandel GmbH & Co. KG, established in Essen (Germany),
Metal Traders Stahlhandel GmbH, established in Düsseldorf
(Germany), represented by K. Friedrich, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J. Forman and R. Raith) —
application for, first, suspension of the operation of Com-
mission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002
imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of
certain steel products (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 1), and, secondly, any
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
other interim measures deemed necessary — the President of
                                                                                INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance, has made an order on 12 July
2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                                           of 14 August 2002
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           in Case T-198/02 R: N v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                           (Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                measure — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post)
                              INSTANCE
                           of 31 July 2002                                                           (2002/C 261/29)
in Case T-191/02 R: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
                     European Communities                                                     (Language of the case: French)
(Procedure for interim relief — Framework agreement of
1974 between the Commission and trade union and pro-
fessional organisations — Repudiation — Admissibility —
                          prima facie case)
                                                                           In Case T-198/02 R: N, a former official of the Commission
                          (2002/C 261/28)                                  of the European Communities, residing in Asse (Belgium),
                                                                           represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                         munities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for suspension of
                                                                           operation of the decision of 25 February 2002 by which the
                                                                           appointing authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary
In Case T-191/02 R: Giorgio Lebedef, official of the Com-                  measure of removal from post without reduction or with-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Senningen-                drawal of entitlement to retirement pension, provided for by


title: Case C-252/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA) v Josef Ebert

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA) v Josef Ebert
   (Case C-252/16)
   (2016/C 279/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA)

      Defendant: Josef Ebert
   By decision of 31 May 2016, the Court removed the case from the Court’s Register


title: Judgment of the Court of 19 September 2000 in Case C-454/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG v Finanzamt Borken and Manfred Strobel v Finanzamt Esslingen (Sixth VAT Directive — Obligation of Member States to provide for the possibility of adjusting tax improperly mentioned on an invoice — Conditions — Good faith of issuer of invoice)

text:
C 316/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
2.     Article 30 of the Treaty and Article 14 of Directive 79/112                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       preclude a national provision from requiring the use of a specific
       language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for
       the possibility for another language easily understood by                                   of 19 September 2000
       purchasers to be used or for the purchaser to be informed by
       other means.
                                                                            in Case C-454/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesfinanzhof): Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                  v Finanzamt Borken and Manfred Strobel v Finanzamt
                                                                                Esslingen (1)
                                                                            (Sixth VAT Directive — Obligation of Member States to
                                                                            provide for the possibility of adjusting tax improperly
                                                                            mentioned on an invoice — Conditions — Good faith of
                                                                                issuer of invoice)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (2000/C 316/22)
                       of 19 September 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-156/98: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Aid granted to undertakings in the new German Länder —                                          in the European Court Reports)
               Tax provision favouring investment)
                                                                            In Case C-454/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                           (2000/C 316/21)                                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                            (Federal Finance Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the proceedings pending before that court between Schmeink
                                                                            & Cofreth AG & Co. KG and Finanzamt Borken and between
                    (Language of the case: German)                          Manfred Strobel and Finanzamt Esslingen — on the interpret-
                                                                            ation of Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive of
                                                                            17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                    in the European Court Reports)                          added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
                                                                            — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón (Presi-
In Case C-156/98: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                      dents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann,
C.-D. Quassowski, assisted by K.A. Schroeter) v Commission                  H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; N. Fennel-
of the European Communities (Agents: P.F. Nemitz and D. Tri-                ly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
antafyllou, assisted by M. Hilf) — application for a annulment              on 19 September 2000, in which it has ruled:
of Commission Decision 98/476/EC of 21 January 1998 on
tax concessions under Paragraph 52(8) of the German Income
Tax Act (the Einkommensteuergesetz) (OJ 1998 L 212, p. 50)                  1.    Where the issuer of the invoice has in sufficient time wholly
— the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                    eliminated the risk of any loss in tax revenues, the principle of
L. Sevón (President of Chamber), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,                     the neutrality of VAT requires that VAT which has been
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rappor-                     improperly invoiced can be adjusted without such adjustment
teur) and V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;                        being made conditional upon the issuer of the relevant invoice
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                      having acted in good faith.
trar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in which it:
                                                                            2.    It is for the Member States to lay down the procedures to apply
1.     Dismisses the application;                                                 as regards the adjustment of improperly invoiced VAT, provided
                                                                                that such adjustment is not dependent on the discretion of the
                                                                                tax authorities.
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                  (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.


title: Case T-199/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Strack v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Application for authorisation to disclose documents — Application for authorisation to publish a text — Application for authorisation to use findings before national judicial authorities — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — No act adversely affecting an official — Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Strack v Commission
   (Case T-199/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Application for authorisation to disclose documents - Application for authorisation to publish a text - Application for authorisation to use findings before national judicial authorities - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - No act adversely affecting an official - Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)
   2013/C 38/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-132/07 Strack v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Guido Strack to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Mr Strack to pay the Civil Service Tribunal EUR 2 000 in order to reimburse part of the costs which that latter had to incur.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case T-581/13: Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/26

         Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)
   (Case T-581/13)
   2014/C 24/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Maitland-Walker, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      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 July 2013 given in Case R 1374/2012-2;

               —

               Award the applicant the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 642 621

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations Nos 8 456 469, 5 482 484, 532 895 and 364 257

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-264/01: Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Léon Rappe against Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.12.2001            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 369/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
      on 25 June 2001 and notified to the applicant on 3 July            The applicant contests the decision adopted in compliance
      2001 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on            with the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
      19 March 2001 against the disciplinary decision of                 T-202/99 annulling the decision of the Commission not to
      19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the                     promote the applicant in the 1998 promotions procedure.
      disciplinary measure of relegation by two steps, pursuant
      to Article 86(2)(D) of the Staff Regulations;                      In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                         of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              principle of equal treatment, as well as manifest error of
                                                                         assessment and breach of the principle of legitimate expec-
                                                                         tations.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his application, the applicant claims infringement
of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error
of assessment. According to the applicant, the documents
attributed to him in the context of the award of a contract for                 Removal from the Register of Case T-313/00 (1)
the security of Commission buildings were issued by a
hierarchical superior who was perfectly well aware of the                                         (2001/C 369/26)
situation. Accordingly, those documents cannot be attributed
to the applicant.                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 13 June 2001, the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities (Single Judge: M. Forwood), has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-313/00,
Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Léon Rappe
                                                                         Sjoerd Feenstra v Commission of the European Communities.
    against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-264/01)                                  (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                        (2001/C 369/25)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-90/01 (1)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2001/C 369/27)
European Communities on 19 October 2001 by Léon Rappe,
residing in Orp-Jauche (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël                                 (Language of the case: German)
Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              By order of 6 July 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of                  has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-90/01,
      18 December 2000 not to promote the applicant to                   Christine Janush v European Central Bank.
      Grade A in the 1998 promotions procedure;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.


title: Case T-246/14: Order of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Yoworld v OHIM — Nestlé (yogorino) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/18

         Order of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Yoworld v OHIM — Nestlé (yogorino)
   (Case T-246/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 221/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yoworld SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2013 (Case R 115/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Yoworld SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of 29 September 1998 in the case of The Polo/Lauren Company v. PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama International Freight Forwarders (Case C-383/98)

text:
19.12.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 397/21
Under English law, effect will be given to the applicable             2. If the answer to question 1 is yes:
law as chosen by the parties, unless there is a public policy
reason, such as an overriding provision, for not so doing.
In such circumstances, are the provisions of Council                       (a) Does Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC apply
Directive 86/653/EEC (1), as implemented in the laws of                         in the circumstances of this case?
the Member States, and in particular those provisions
relating to the payment of compensation to agents on
termination of their agreements with their principals,                     (b) In particular, is the Respondent prevented from
applicable when:                                                                relying upon Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC
                                                                                where both the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment
                                                                                Regulations 1998 and the Social Security
(i)   a principal appoints an exclusive agent in United                         Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 under which
      Kingdom and Republic of Ireland for the sale of its                       those Regulations were made came into force
      products therein; and                                                     after 23 December 1984, the latest date for the
                                                                                said Directive to be given full effect in domestic
                                                                                law?
(ii) in so far as sales of the products in the United
      Kingdom are concerned, the agent carries out its                (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978, on the
      activities in the United Kingdom; and                               progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                          for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6,
                                                                          10.1.1979, p. 24).
(iii) the principal is a company incorproated in a non-EU
      State, and in particular in the State of California,
      USA and situated there; and
(iv) the express applicable law of the contract between
      the parties is that of the State of California, USA?            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                      Gerichtshof by order of 29 September 1998 in the case of
                                                                      The Polo/Lauren Company v. PT. Dwidua Langgeng
(1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986, on the                     Pratama International Freight Forwarders
    coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
    employed commercial agents (OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17).                                (Case C-383/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/37)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of 29 September 1998
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of               from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court),
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                  which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October
Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 9 October                 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Polo/
1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State             Lauren Company v. PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama
       for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry Taylor               International Freight Forwarders on the following
                        (Case C-382/98)                               question:
                          (98/C 397/36)
                                                                      On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                                                                      Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                 export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                  counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 341, 30.12.1994) also
Divisional Court, of 9 October 1998, which was received               applicable to situations in which goods of the type
at the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a                       specified therein are, in the course of transit between two
preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against                   countries not belonging to the European Community,
Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry          temporarily detained by the customs authorities in a
Taylor, on the following questions:                                   Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the
                                                                      request of a holder of rights who claims that his rights
                                                                      have been infringed and whose undertaking has its
                                                                      registered office in a non-member country?
1. Is a winter fuel payment made under Regulation 2(5),
     2(6) and 3(1)(b) of the Social Fund Winter Fuel
     Payment Regulations 1998 within the scope of
     Article 3 of Directive 79/7/EEC (1)?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 March 1995 in Case T-34/93: Société Générale v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Decision requiring information pursuant to Article 11 (5) of Regulation No 17 - Statement of reasons - Rights of the defence)

text:
No C 87/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 4 . 95
the European Social Fund's contribution to Project No                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
860012/P1 , relating to vocational training carried out by the                              of 8 March 1995
applicants in 1986, was legally non-existent prior to 10 July        in Case T-493/93 : Hansa-Fisch GmbH v. Commission of
1991 and is void since that date and for an order that the
Commission pay the final balance of the Community                                    the European Communities (*)
contribution claimed under Project No 860012/P1 — the                (Fisheries — EEC-Morocco Agreement — Issue oflicences
Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. L.           — Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal — Relative
Cruz Vilaça, President, H. Kirschner and A.                                      stability — Legitimate expectations)
Kalogeropoulos,        Judges;     J.    Palacio     Gonzalez,                                  ( 95/C 87/22 )
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
7 March 1995, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1 . declares void the Commission 's Decision reducing the
    amount of the European Social Fund's contribution to             In Case T-493/93 : Hansa-Fisch GmbH, established at
    Project No 860012/P1 , relating to vocational training in        Schenefeld,       Germany,        represented initially       by
    Portugal in 1986;                                                Heinrich-Werner Goltz, then by Rafael Barber-Llorente,
                                                                     Rechtsanwalte, Hamburg, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and U.
2. dismisses the remainder of the application;                       Wölker) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                     Commission's decision refusing to submit the applicant's
3 . orders the Commission to pay all the costs.                      request for a fishing licence to the Moroccan authorities in
                                                                     accordance with Annex I to the Agreement on relations in
(M OJ No C 291 , 8 . 11 . 1991 .                                     the sea fisheries sector between the European Economic
                                                                     Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as approved by
                                                                     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2054/88 of 23 June 1988 (2 )
                                                                     and by Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3954/92 of
                                                                     19 December 1992 ( 3 ) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.
                                                                     Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges, H. Jung,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 1995 , in which
                       of 8 March 1995                               it:
in Case T-34/93 : Société Générale v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (*)                           1 . dismisses the application;
(Competition — Decision requiring information pursuant
to Article 11 (5) of Regulation No 17 — Statement of                 2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
              reasons — Rights of the defence)
                          ( 95/C 87/21 )                             (!) OJ No C 231 , 27. 8 . 1993 .
                                                                     (2) OJ No L 181 , 12. 7. 1988, p. 1 .
               (Language of the case: French)                        (3 ) OJ No L 407, 31 . 12 . 1992, p. 1 .
In Case T-34/93 : Societe Generale, established in Paris,
represented by Robert Saint-Esteben, of the Paris Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and H.                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Lehman) — application for (i ) the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 1 April 1993 relating to a                                       of 13 January 1995
proceeding pursuant to Article 11 ( 5 ) of Regulation No 17          in Case T-524/93 : Humphrey Hennessy and Others v.
and (ii ) compensation for the loss which the applicant claims       Council of the European Union and Commission of the
to have suffered as a result of that decision — the Court of                           European Communities (*)
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,                        (Partial removal from the register)
President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges,                                       ( 95/C 87/23
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 1995 , in
which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
I. dismisses the application;
                                                                     In Case T-524/93 : Humphrey Hennessy, residing in
2. orders the applicant to bear the costs.                           Timoleague (Ireland ), and the other milk producers whose
                                                                     names appear in an Annex to the order, represented by
                                                                     James O'Reilly SC, of the Bar of Ireland, and Philippa
(!) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 .                                     Watson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Oliver
                                                                     Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at Fyfe Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-Pierre


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 1997 in Case C-60/96: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - VAT - Sixth Directive - Exemptions - Letting of tents, caravans or mobile homes)

text:
No C 252/12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
consideration is in kind, when it permits a refund where              2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
the consideration is expressed in money.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             of 9 July 1997
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                              in Joined Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95
                                                                      (references for a preliminary ruling from the
                          of 3 July 1997                              Marknadsdomstol ): Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v.
                                                                      De Agostini ( Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombuds
in     Case   C-60/96: Commission of the European                                mannen (KO ) v. TY-Shop i Sverige AB (')
              Communities v. French Republic (^
                                                                      ('Television without frontiers ' Directive — Television
 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT           advertising broadcast from a Member State — Prohibition
— Sixth Directive — Exemptions — Letting of tents,                    of misleading advertising — Prohibition of advertising
                   caravans or mobile homes)                                                 directed at children)
                          ( 97/C 252/22 )                                                        ( 97/C 252/23 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Joined Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95 : references
                                                                      to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
 In Case C-60/96 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : Helene Michard and Enrico
                                                                      Marknadsdomstol ( Sweden ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      proceedings pending before that court between Konsumen
Traversa ) v. French Republic ( Agents: Catherine de Salins
 and Gautier Mignot) — Application for a declaration that,
                                                                      tombudsmannen ( KO ) and De Agostini ( Svenska ) Förlag
                                                                      AB ( C-34/95 ), and between Konsumentombudsmannen
 by introducing and maintaining in force an administrative
                                                                       ( KO ) and TV-Shop i Sverige AB ( C-35/95 and C-36/95 ) —
 provision extending to the letting of certain forms of
                                                                      on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 59 of the EC
 movable property the exemption from VAT which,
                                                                      Treaty and of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October
 pursuant to Article 13 B ( b ) of the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                       1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
                                                                       by law, regulation or administrative action in Member
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                       States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
 Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                       activities ( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 ) — the
 assessment, is restricted exclusively to the letting of
                                                                       Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 immovable property, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                       G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray
 fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive —
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
 the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                       Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
 President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                       Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H.
 P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges;             Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. A.
 G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                       Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
 Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
                                                                       a judgment on 9 July 1997, in which it has ruled:
  1997, in which it:
                                                                        1 . Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on
  1 . declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force                the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
      an administrative provision extending to the letting of               law, regulation or administrative action in Member
      certain forms of movable property the exemption from                  States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
      VAT which, pursuant to Article 13 B (b) of the Sixth                  activities does not preclude a Member State from
      Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                    taking, pursuant to general legislation on protection of
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States                        consumers against misleading advertising, measures
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                   against an advertiser in relation to television
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is restricted                 advertising broadcast from another Member State,
      exclusively to the letting of immovable property, the                 provided that those measures do not prevent the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                  retransmission, as such, in its territory of television
      under Article 2 of that Directive;                                    broadcasts coming from that other Member State.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 15 June 1995 in Joined Cases C-422/93, C-423/93 and C-424/93 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain): Teresa Zabala Erasun v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo; Elvira Encabo Terrazos v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo; and Francisco Casquero Carrillo v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo (Preliminary reference - Conditions under which court of reference should maintain its reference - Scope of the Court's jurisdiction)

text:
 2 . 9 . 95             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 229/3
      concerned to hold a work permit or a residence permit                 ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
      issued by the authorities in the host State in order to              Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
      carry out his work . The fact that such employment exists            Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
      necessarily implies the recognition ofa right ofresidence             15 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
      for the person concerned;
                                                                           Community law does not preclude a court which has made a
 3 . Article 6 (2) of Decision No 1 /80 does not confer on a               preliminary reference from finding that in national law the
      Turkish national who has belonged to the legitimate                  claims of the appellants have been acceded to and, where
      labour force ofa Member State the right to remain in the             appropriate, that the main proceedings are thereby
      territory of that State following an accident at work                terminated. As long as the court which made the reference
      rendering him permanently incapacitated for work .                   has not found that in national law the fact that the claims
                                                                           have been acceded to has not so terminated the proceedings,
                                                                           the Court has no jurisdiction to give a ruling on the
(!) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                         questions referred to it.
( 2 ) OJ No 217, 29 . 12 . 1964 , p . 3685/64 .
                                                                           ( 1 ) OJ No C 316 , 23 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fourth Chamber )
                          of 15 June 1995                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Joined Cases C-422/93 , C-423/93 and C-424/93                                                    ( Fifth Chamber)
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País                                              of 15 June 1995
Vasco ( Spain ): Teresa Zabala Erasun v. Instituto Nacional                       in Case C-220/94: Commission of the European
de Empleo; Elvira Encabo Terrazos v. Instituto Nacional de                        Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )
Empleo; and Francisco Casquero Carrillo v. Instituto                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/44/EEC —
                     Nacional de Empleo i 1 )                              Telecommunications — Open network provision for leased
(Preliminary reference — Conditions under which court of                                                   lines)
reference should maintain its reference — Scope of the                                                 95/C 229/05 )
                       Court's jurisdiction)
                           ( 95/C 229/04 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-220/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: Anders C. Jessen and J.-F . Pasquier )
In Joined Cases C-422/93 , C-423/93 and C-424/93 :                        v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: N. Schmit ) —
references to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty                application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within
by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad                      the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Autonoma del Pais Vasco ( Spain ) for a preliminary ruling in             administrative provisions needed to comply with Council
the proceedings pending before that court between Teresa                  Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of
Zabala Erasun and Instituto Nacional de Empleo, Elvira                    open network provision to leased lines ( 2 ) or, alternatively,
Encabo Terrazos and Instituto Nacional de Empleo, and                     by failing to inform the Commission forthwith of such
Francisco Casquero Carrillo and Instituto Nacional de                     measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
Empleo on the interpretation of Articles 4(1 ) ( g ), 4 ( 2 ), 5          fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 1 89
and 97 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June                of the EC Treaty and under Article 15 of that Directive —
1971 on the application of social security schemes to                     the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann,
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                         President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de
members of their families moving within the Community, as                 Almeida , D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevon,
codified by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June              Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
1983 ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris                 15 June 1995 ; in which it:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 April 1998 in Case T-184/95: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act - Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 - Embargo on trade with Iraq - Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation - Liability for an unlawful act - Damage)

text:
13.6.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 184/9
         Removal from the register of C-365/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-203/97 (1)
                        (98/C 184/14)                                                      (98/C 184/15)
By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-365/96 (reference for          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):               removal from the register of Case C-203/97: Commission
Ruhrgas AG and Thyssengas GmbH v. Bundeskartellamt.                of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany.
(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 28 April 1998                                                   of 30 April 1998
in Case T-184/95: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft             in Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale v. European
mbH against Council of the European Union and                                               Parliament (1)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Exchanges of officials between the Parliament
(Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act Ð                   and national administrations Ð Subsistence allowance Ð
Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 Ð Embargo on trade with                Travel expenses Ð Complaint Ð Express rejection Ð
Iraq Ð Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation                             Inadmissibility of the action)
        Ð Liability for an unlawful act Ð Damage)
                                                                                (98/C 184/17)
                        (98/C 184/16)
               (Language of the case: German)                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-184/95, Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft             In Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale, a former member
mbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by               of the temporary staff of the European Parliament,
Professor Karl M. Meessen, with an address for service in          residing at Messina (Italy), represented by Jean-NoeÈl
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Patrick Kinsch, 100                  Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the
Boulevard de la PeÂtrusse, against Council of the European         Reggio di Calabria Bar, with an adress for service in
Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien, then Stephan               Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Marquardt and Antonio Tanca) and Commission of the                 Rue de Cessange, v. European Parliament (Agents:
European Communities (Agents: Peter Gilsdorf, Allan                Manfred Peter and Antonio Caiola) Ð application, first,
Rosas and Jörn Sack) Ð application for compensation for            for annulment of the decision of the Parliament refusing to
the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result         grant the applicant the subsistence allowance and travel
of the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90             expenses provided for by the Parliament's decision of
of 8 August 1990 preventing trade by the Community as              26 October 1988 and, second, for damages Ð the Court
regards Iraq and Kuwait (OJ L 213 of 9.8.1990, p. 1) Ð             of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended              Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
Composition), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,           Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
V. Tiili and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,            given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it:
gave a judgment on 28 April 1998 in which it:
                                                                   1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                   2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.                                          (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.


title: Case T-847/16: Action brought on 2 December 2016 — Cyprus v EUIPO — POCF (COWBOYS HALLOUMI)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/57

         Action brought on 2 December 2016 — Cyprus v EUIPO — POCF (COWBOYS HALLOUMI)
   (Case T-847/16)
   (2017/C 022/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pancyprian Organisation of Cattle Farmers (POCF) (Latsia, Cyprus)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours containing the word elements ‘COWBOYS HALLOUMI’ — Application for registration No 11 281 375

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 2781/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


28.3.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/39
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 29 May 1997 the appointing authority took the                  Ð annul the decision of 6 January 1997 determining
decision to accept that the applicant, a former official at           Brussels as the applicant's place of recruitment and, in
the Commission, who had worked in the Berlaymont                      so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting her
building in Brussels, suffered 6 % partial permanent                  complaint,
invalidity (PPI). That decision was based on the findings
of a medical committee.                                           Ð grant the applicant, by the same token, the rights to
                                                                      which she is entitled under Article 7 of Annex VII to
                                                                      the Staff Regulations and all the other rights under the
The applicant maintains that the work of the medical                  Staff Regulations flowing from determining Stockholm
committee is vitiated by several irregularities. That                 as her place of recruitment,
committee did not complete its mission and was not given
all the relevant reports.
                                                                  Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Moreover, the medical committee's opinion does not                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contain a comprehensible link between the medical
considerations and its conclusions, nor does it provide an
                                                                  The applicant, an official of Swedish nationality at the
adequate statement of reasons.
                                                                  Commission since December 1996, contests the
                                                                  defendant's decision to determine Brussels as her place of
By not noting the numerous irregularities committed by            recruitment.
that committee, the appointing authority in its turn
breached the principle of good management sound                   The applicant maintains that throughout 1996 and at the
administration.                                                   time when she took up her duties, she was permanently
                                                                  employed and habitually resident in Sweden. For that
                                                                  reason, the applicant's place of recruitment was and could
                                                                  be no other than Stockholm. In taking the contested
                                                                  decision, the defendant infringed Article 7 of Annex VII to
                                                                  the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 4 February 1998 by Jannice Kjellberg
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-28/98)
                         (98/C 94/89)                                   Removal from the register of Case T-240/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/90)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 By order of 16 January 1998 the President of the Fifth
Instance of the European Communities on 4 February                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
1998 by Jannice Kjellberg, residing at Brussels,                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of            Case T-240/97: Luc Verheyden v. Commission of the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  European Communities.
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Ces-
sange.                                                            (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.


20.4.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 97/9
Action brought on 5 March 2002 by the Commission of                    Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                   the European Communities against the French Republic
                           of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-85/02)
                         (Case C-74/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 97/18)
                         (2002/C 97/17)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
                                                                       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an address
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-           for service in Luxembourg.
ties on 5 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser
in the Legal Service of the Commission of the European                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              the Court should:
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal         (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    administrative measures necessary in order to transpose
                                                                             point 12 in Annex II to Directive 91/439/EC of 29 July
                                                                             1991 (1), or at any rate by failing to notify those measures
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                             fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply             (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      with Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
      availability of consumer information on fuel economy             Pleas in law and main arguments
      and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
      passenger cars (1), or at any rate to notify the same to
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
      the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                       advanced in Case C-74/02; the time-limit for transposition
      infringed its obligations under Article 12(1) of that
                                                                       expired on 1 July 1996.
      directive;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.            (1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences
                                                                           (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of directives pursuant to the third                      Removal from the register of Case C-318/01 (1)
paragraph of Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of
Article 10 EC is such as to require Member States to whom                                         (2002/C 97/19)
directives are addressed to transpose the provisions thereof
into national law so as to give full practical effect to them
before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition. The time-       By order of 22 October 2001 the President of the Court of
limit prescribed in Article 12 of the directive expired on             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
18 January 2001.                                                       from the register of Case C-318/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma):
                                                                       Informatica e Telecomunicazioni I & T SpA v Direzione
(1) OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16.                                               Regionale delle Entrate per il Lazio.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Case C-495/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
C 56/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
f)    The Commission also considers that, by reason of its              of the dried fodder. According to the Commission, it must also
      failure to respect the requirements of Article 9 and 10 of        be considered that there is a supply for consideration within
      the Directive regarding permits, Ireland is not respecting        the meaning of the Sixth Directive, because the recipient of aid
      Article 13 of the Directive, which requires establishments        is a fodder-processing undertaking which sells fodder to third
      or undertakings carrying waste operations to be subject           parties. In Finland, however, value added tax is not charged on
      to periodic inspection by the authorities, or Article 14 of       such aid.
      the Directive, which requires such establishments or
      undertakings to keep records and to make this infor-
      mation available on request by the competent authorities.         (1) On the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                            to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment, (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).
(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ           (2) (OJ L 63 of 21.03.1995, p. 1).
    L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39).
(2) OJ L 078, 26.03.1991, p. 32.
                                                                        Appeal brought on 24 December 2001 (fax: 20.12.2001)
                                                                        by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by the Commission                    (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered
of the European Communities against the Republic of                     on 3 October 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                              Finland                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                        T-140/00 between Zapf Creation AG and the Office for
                                                                        Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                         (Case C-495/01)                                                              Designs)
                          (2002/C 56/15)                                                         (Case C-498/01 P)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/16)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
21 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by E. Traversa and I. Koskinen, with           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 October 2001
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                   by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-140/00 between Zapf
                                                                        Creation AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 December
                                                                        2001 (fax: 20.12.2001) by the Office for Harmonisation in
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland is in breach of              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by
      Article 11 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of           Detlev Schennen, Head of Unit in the Legal Department, and
      17 May 1977 on value added tax (1) by failing to charge           Carina Røhl Søberg, administrator in the Legal Department of
      value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation              the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common                  Marks and Designs).
      organisation of the market in dried fodder (2);
2.    Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1) dismiss the application of Zapf Creation AG;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (2) order Zapf Creation AG (as applicant in the proceedings
                                                                              before the Court of First Instance) to pay the costs of the
                                                                              proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
According to Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, the
taxable amount is the consideration payable for the supply,
which is to include ‘subsidies directly linked to the price’ of the     (3) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
supply. Since the Community aid granted for the processing                    3 October 2001 in Case T-140/00 ‘New Born Baby’ (1);
and sale of dried fodder is paid on the basis of the amount of
dried fodder sold and treated, the aid must, in the Commission’s        (4) order Zapf Creation AG to pay the costs of the proceed-
opinion, be considered to have a direct influence on the price                ings before the Court of Justice.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 2000 in Case C-348/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Comarca de Setúbal): Vitor Manuel Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança SA (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Minimum amounts of cover — Type of civil liability — Injury caused to a member of the family of the insured person or driver)

text:
C 335/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            25.11.2000
      obligation to do so derives from the employment relationship                accident and whose liability is covered by compulsory motor-
      between those employees and the transferor, and in accordance               vehicle insurance, where those passengers are carried free of
      with the terms agreed in that relationship. Directive 77/187                charge, whether or not there is any fault on the part of the
      does not, however, preclude the transferee from altering the                driver of the vehicle which caused the accident, only if the
      terms of the employment relationship where national law allows              domestic law of the Member State concerned requires such cover
      such an alteration in situations other than the transfer of an              in respect of personal injuries caused in the same conditions to
      undertaking.                                                                other third-party passengers.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.                                                 2.    Articles 1(2) and 5(3) of Directive 84/5, as amended by
                                                                                Annex I, Part IX F, entitled ‘Insurance’, of the Act concerning
                                                                                the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
                                                                                Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties,
                                                                                preclude domestic laws laying down maximum amounts of
                                                                                compensation that are lower than the minimum amounts of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                cover laid down by those provisions where, in the absence of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                        fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle which caused the
                                                                                accident, only civil liability for materialisation of risk arises.
                      of 14 September 2000
in Case C-348/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
the Tribunal da Comarca de Setúbal): Vitor Manuel
Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira
    v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança SA (1)
(Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of
motor vehicles — Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC —
Minimum amounts of cover — Type of civil liability —
Injury caused to a member of the family of the insured                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           person or driver)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 335/07)
                                                                                of 14 September 2000
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                            in Case C-369/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Minister
In Case C-348/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Trevor Robert
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal da                        Fisher and Penny Fisher, trading as ‘TR & P Fisher’ (1)
Comarca de Setúbal, Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Vitor Manuel                  (Aid schemes — Computerised database — Disclosure of
Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira and                                              information)
Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança SA — on the
interpretation of the Second Council Directive (84/5/EEC) of                                           (2000/C 335/08)
30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) and                                   (Language of the case: English)
the Third Council Directive (90/232/EEC) of 14 May 1990 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor         In Case C-369/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                       Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann and H. Ragnem-              isional Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
alm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              pending before that court between The Queen and Minister of
has given a judgment on 14 September 2000, in which it has                  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Trevor Robert Fisher
ruled:                                                                      and Penny Fisher, trading as ‘TR & P Fisher’ — on the
                                                                            interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 9 of Council Regulation
1.    Article 3 of the Second Council Directive (84/5/EEC) of               (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an
      30 December 1983, on the approximation of the laws of the             integrated administration and control system for certain
      Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in        Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1) and of
      respect of the use of motor vehicles, requires compulsory             Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
      insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor      23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying
      vehicles to cover personal injuries to passengers who are             the integrated administration and control system for certain
      members of the family of the insured person, of the driver of the     Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36) — the Court
      vehicle or of any other person who incurs civil liability for an      (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of


title: Case C-360/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 2 August 2007 — Andreas Kunert v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 2 August 2007 — Andreas Kunert v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-360/07)
   (2007/C 269/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andreas Kunert

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage and advertise participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as betting on certain sporting events (horse racing), slot machines and casino games — may be provided by private service providers?

               2.

               Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other Member States as well without any additional national authorisations being required?


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 July 1996 in Case T-93/96 R: Catherine Presle v. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

text:
No C 247/ 16          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              European Communities in Luxembourg be maintained for
                        of 11 July 1996                               the time being — the President of the Court of First Instance
                                                                      made an order on 5 July 1 996 , the operative part of which is
in Case T-30/96 : Jose Gomes de Sa Pereira v. Council of the          as follows :
                      European Union (')
(Council decisions appointing the chairmen and members of             1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
the Boards ofAppeal ofthe Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market (trade marks and designs) — Action for                2.  the costs are reserved.
    annulment — Action for damages — Inadmissible)
                          ( 96/C 247/34 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
In Case T-30/96 : Jose Gomes de Sa Pereira , residing at Sao                   OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Joao de Ver, Santa Maria da Feira ( Portugal ), represented by                               of 12 July 1996
Augusto Cardoso, of the Oporto Bar, 1 6 Rua Jornal Correio
da Feira , 1° Dt°, Santa Maria da Feira , v. Council of the           in Case T-93/96 R: Catherine Presle v. European Centre for
European Union ( Agents : Therese Blanchet and Isabel                            the Development of Vocational Training
Lopes Cardoso ) — application , first, for annulment of the                                    ( 96/C 247/36 )
decisions of the Council of 23 October 1 995 appointing the
chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal of the Office                           (Language of the case: German)
for Harmonization in the Internal Market ( trade marks and
designs ) ( OJ No C 314 , pp . 3 , 4 and 5 ) and, second, for an      In Case T-93/96 R : Catherine Presle , an official of the
order requiring the Council to pay compensation for the               European Centre for the Development of Vocational
damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of             Training, residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
those decisions — the Court of First Instance (Third                  Rechtsanwalt,     1 3 Place des Barricades, Brussels, v.
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, President, and B.                 European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, made         Training,      represented     by Bertrand Wagenbaur,
an order on 11 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as          Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg — application , first, for
follows :
                                                                      suspension of operation of the defendant's decision relating
                                                                      to the transfer of the applicant to Thessaloniki and , second ,
1 . the application for free legal assistance is dismissed;           for an order that her posting in the Berlin branch of the
                                                                      European Parliament's Information Office for Germany be
2 . the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;               maintained for the time being — the President of the Court
                                                                      of First Instance made an order on 12 July 19 96 , the
3 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                  operative part of which is as follows:
(•) OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                     1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                      2.  the costs are reserved.
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                         of 5 July 1996                                        OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-85 /96 R: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre
                                                                                of 25 July 1996
        for the Development of Vocational Training
                                                                      in Case T-98/96 R: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
                          ( 96/ C 247/35 )
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                       (Officials — Decision providing for reassignment to a post
                (Language of the case: German)                                         — Suspension of operation)
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/37 )
In Case T-85/96 R : Francis Alan Clarke , an official of the
European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Training, residing at Eischen ( Luxembourg ), represented by                          (Language of the case: French)
Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, 13 Place des Barricades,
Brussels, v. European Centre for the Development of                   In Case T-98/96 R : Mario Costacurta , an official of the
Vocational Training, represented by Bertrand Wagenbaur,               Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg — application, first, for                       Kinshasa , represented by Nicolas Decker, of the
suspension of operation of the defendant's decision relating          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
to the transfer of the applicant to Thessaloniki and , second ,       Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers , v. Commission of the
for an order that his posting in the Statistical Office of the        European Communities ( Agents: G. Valsesia and A. M.


title: Case T-569/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Marouf v Council

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/23

         Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Marouf v Council
   (Case T-569/12)
   2013/C 63/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Soulieman Marouf (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, T. Eicke, QC, A. Sander, Barrister, and R. Franklin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (as amended) (‘The Council Decision’), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (as amended) and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 944/2012 of 15 October 2012 and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (‘The Council Regulations’), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Council contained in its letter of 30 November 2012 (Ref No SGS12/013373) ‘that the applicant should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities that appear in Annexes I and II to Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP and in Annex II and IIa to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 …’ (‘the Decision’);

               —

               Order the European Union to compensate the applicant; and,

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   First, the applicant contends that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against him and/or manifest error of assessment on the basis that there is no rational connection between him and the individuals sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union namely those who are responsible for the violent repression of the civilian population in Syria.
   Second, the applicant claims that there is an absence of legal basis for Article 24 of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP seeking to prevent his entry into, or transit through, the Member States on the basis of the applicant’s rights as a citizen of the EU under Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC.
   Third, that the Council decision and the Council Regulations amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of human Rights including the applicant’s right to human dignity, right to a good administration, right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, right to be presumed innocent and rights of defence, right to respect for his private and family life, home and communications, freedom to conduct a business, and his right to property.


C 71/44               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                    20.3.2004
       Removal from the register of Case T-319/02 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-191/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 71/77)                                                            (2004/C 71/79)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                                            (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                          By order of 1 December 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of
T-319/02: H.O. Sport Inc. v Office for the Harmonisation of
                                                                          Case T-191/03: Alexandre Tilgenkamp v Commission of the
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
                                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case T-180/03 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-296/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 71/78)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/80)
                  (Language of the Case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 4 December 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of                      By order of 15 December 2003 the President of the Fourth
Case T-180/03: Auna Operadores de Telecomunicaciones S.A.                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
and Others v Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-296/03: Proteco srl v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Case T-766/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/27

         Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background)
   (Case T-766/15)
   (2016/C 078/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delpeyrat (Saint Pierre du Mont, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in colour (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background) — Community trade mark No 3 916 509

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2015 in Case R 2693/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 509 to designate fish, smoked fish and smoked salmon;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(a) of that regulation, and of Rule 22 and Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case T-327/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Stichting Al-Aqsa v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Stichting Al-Aqsa v Council
   (Case T-327/03) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons)
   (2007/C 199/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Heerlen — Netherlands) (represented by: V. Koppe and L. Janssen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and S. Marquardt, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment in part, first, of Council Decision 2003/480/EC of 27 June 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/974/EC (OJ 2003 L 160, p. 81), and, second, of Council Decision 2003/646/EC of 12 September 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/1480 (OJ 2003 L 229, p. 22).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930 in so far as it concerns Stichting Al-Aqsa;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to rule on the claim for a declaration, pursuant to Article 241 EC, that Council Regulation No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 is unlawful;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Stichting Al-Aqsa:

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.