title: Case T-220/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cavankee Fishing Company Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/10                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
The applicant furthermore invokes a breach of the duty to                     Pleas in law and main arguments
state reasons and a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
In this last respect, the applicant submits that a difference
appears to have been made between all applications for new                    The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
replacement vessels and two applications for new replacement                  03 (1).
vessels for the ‘Angela’ and ‘Pembroke’.
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
( 1) 2003/245/EC: Commission Decision of 4 April 2003 on the
     requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV
     objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navi-
     gation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions
     for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (notified under
     document number C(2003) 1113) (OJ L 90, p. 48).
( 2) 97/413/EC: Council Decision of 26 June 1997 concerning the
     objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community
     fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 Decem-         Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cavankee Fishing
     ber 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable             Company Limited against the Commission of the Euro-
     basis between resources and their exploitation (OJ L 175, p. 27).                                  pean Communities
                                                                                (Case T-220/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Mullglen Limited
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             (Case T-219/03)                                  European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cavankee Fishing
                                                                              Company Limited, Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gal-
                                                                              lagher and A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                            (2003/C 239/14)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Mullglen Limited,                            under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,                    capacity application to lengthen the MFV Fr McGee and
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                                for a proposed new vessel to replace the MFV Fr McGee;
                                                                              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                          ings.
—       annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
        Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
        Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                  Pleas in law and main arguments
        into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
        hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
        vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified                  The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
        under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety                 03 (1).
        capacity application for a proposed new vessel to replace
        the MFV Pacelli.
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
—       order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
        ings.


title: Action brought on 18 April 1995 by WWF UK (World Wide Fund for Nature) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-105/95)

text:
No C 174/8         | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 7 . 95
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                  undermine the objectives of the Community's policy on
                                                                        improved access to Community documents . Thus, if the
2.  the costs are reserved.
                                                                        Commission invokes an exception to the general access
                                                                        to its documents , it must establish the ' imperative
                                                                        reasons ' for which the conditions laid down in the
                                                                        exception clause are fulfilled, and deal with the
                                                                        particularities of the case and with the contents of the
                                                                        documents to which access is required .
                                                                        The applicant states that the Commission invoked two
Action brought on 18 April 1995 by WWF UK (World Wide                   reasons for its refusal to grant access to the documents in
Fund for Nature ) against the Commission of the European                question : its interest in the confidentiality of its
                         Communities
                                                                        proceedings and the protection of the public interest, in
                      ( Case T-105/95 )                                 particular, the ability of the Commission to conduct
                        ( 95/C 174/ 14 )                                infringement proceedings . However, the Commission
                                                                        did not provide any ' imperative reasons ' for which the
                                                                        disclosure of the documents in question would affect the
              (Language of the case: English)                           protection of its interest in the confidentiality of its
                                                                        proceedings ; and , as regards the second reason, the
An action against the Commission of the European                        Commission did not deal with the particularities of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       case : its reasoning consists entirely of general statements
Instance of the European Communities on 1 8 April 1995 by               which, if correct, would apply to all infringement
WWF UK ( World Wide Fund for Nature ), represented by Dr                proceedings . The applicant maintains therefore that the
Georg M. Berrisch, with an address for service in                       Commission wrongly invoked the exception clause in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk et Prum, Avenue                      the Code of conduct and that, accordingly, the contested
Guillaume 13 B, L-1651 Luxembourg.                                      decision constitutes the most extensive breach possible
                                                                        for the applicant's right of access to Commission
                                                                        documents .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    2 . Insufficient reasoning — Infringement of Article 190 of
— annul the decision of the European Commission                         the EC Treaty
    contained in a letter of 2 February 1995 from the
    Secretary-General of the European Communities to
    counsel for the applicant by which the Secretary-General            The applicant states that Article 190 requires that the
    confirmed the refusal of the Directors-General of DG XI             Community institutions must provide reasoning for
    and DG XVI to grant the applicant access to                         their decisions . The main purpose of this provision is to
    Commission documents relating to the examination of                 make judicial review of such decisions possible . In this
    the Mullaghmore project, and in particular to the                   respect, the duty to provide sufficient reasoning serves to
    examination of whether structural funds may be used                 protect the rights of defence of those concerned by the
                                                                        decision .
    for the project, and
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these                        The applicant emphasizes that the reasoning of the
    proceedings .                                                       contested decision does not deal with the particularities
                                                                        of the case . It consists only of broad statements and it
                                                                        does not suffice to justify the conclusion that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Commission was entitled to refuse to make public the
                                                                        documents in question .
The applicant submits that the contested decision must be
annulled for two reasons :
1 . Violation of the ' Code of conduct concerning public
    access to Commission and Council documents ' ( the
    ' Code of conduct') and of Decision 94/90/ECSC , EC,
    Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to                  Action brought on 28 April 1995 by X against the
    Commission documents ( the 'adopting Decision ').                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-109/95 )
    The applicant maintains that the Code of conduct and
    the adopting Decision are legally binding on the                                          ( 95/C 174/ 15
    Commission and that they impose upon it an obligation
    to grant, to the widest extent possible, access to its                           (Language of the case: English)
    documents . This obligation is the corollary of a right
    enjoyed by natural and legal persons in the Community.
    The exception clause in the Code of conduct must be             An action against the Commission of the European
    interpreted strictly and its application may not                Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-86/10: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Siegburg (Germany)) — Hüseyin Balaban v Zelter GmbH

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Siegburg (Germany)) — Hüseyin Balaban v Zelter GmbH
   (Case C-86/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/52
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-63/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Land Baden-Württemberg and Günther Schilling, participant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, v Bezirksregierung Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, participant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules — Application for "livestock" aid — Checks on animals — Reduction of the amount of aid)

text:
C 169/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            13.7.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                            court between Michael Hölterhoff and Ulrich Freiesleben on
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                   the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council
                                                                            Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
                            30 May 2002                                     the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989
                                                                            L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the
in Case C-516/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Fifth Chamber, acting for the President, F. Macken, N. Colneric
the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,                    and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann
   Niederösterreich und Burgenland): Walter Schmid (1)                      (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
(Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the                V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
meaning of Article 234 EC — Lack of jurisdiction of the                     Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May
                          Court of Justice)                                 2002, in which it has ruled:
                          (2002/C 169/08)                                   Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December
                                                                            1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
                   (Language of the case: German)                           trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a
                                                                            trade mark cannot rely on his exclusive right where a third party, in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the course of commercial negotiations, reveals the origin of goods
                   in the European Court Reports)                           which he has produced himself and uses the sign in question solely to
                                                                            denote the particular characteristics of the goods he is offering for sale
In Case C-516/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  so that there can be no question of the trade mark used being
EC by the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für                    perceived as a sign indicative of the undertaking of origin.
Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Austria) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings brought by Walter Schmid, on                 (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,
D.A.O. Edward, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
mermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
to answer the questions referred by the Berufungssenat V der                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland,
by order of 2 December 1999.
                                                                                16 May 2002
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                            in Case C-63/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Land Baden-Württem-
                                                                            berg and Günther Schilling, participant: Oberbundesan-
                                                                            walt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, v Bezirksregierung
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, participant: Oberbun-
                                                                                desanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1)
                            14 May 2002
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
in Case C-2/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     92 — Integrated administration and control system for
the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Michael Hölterhoff v                     certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules —
                       Ulrich Freiesleben (1)                               Application for ‘livestock’ aid — Checks on animals —
                                                                                Reduction of the amount of aid)
(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
104/EEC — Article 5(1) — Scope of the proprietor’s
exclusive right to the trade mark — Third party — Use of                                               (2002/C 169/10)
            the trade mark for descriptive purposes)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2002/C 169/09)
                   (Language of the case: German)                           (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-63/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-2/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 169/7
Land Baden-Württemberg and Günther Schilling, participant:                  ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, and                         against Kenny Roland Lyckeskog, on the interpretation of the
Bezirksregierung Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, partici-                   third paragraph of Article 234 EC and of Article 45(1) of
pant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, on                    Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983
the interpretation of the first and second sentences of the first           setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules                   No 355/94 of 14 February 1994 (OJ 1994 L 46, p. 5), the
for applying the integrated administration and control system               Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), the               F. Macken, N. Colneric, and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),                 Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-                J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N.
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                    Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 June
has given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:                 2002, in which it has ruled:
On a proper construction of the first and second sentences of the first
subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for
applying the integrated administration and control system for certain       1.    Where the decisions of a national court or tribunal can be
Community aid schemes, the unit amount of the aid must be reduced                 appealed to the supreme court under conditions such as those
even where the discrepancy between the number of animals declared                 that apply to decisions of the referring court in the present case,
and the number of animals found during checks is not attributable to              that court or tribunal is not under the obligation referred to in
incorrect information given by the applicant but to the fact that the             the third paragraph of Article 234 EC.
necessary conditions for the grant of the premiums are not satisfied
in regard to certain animals.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                                  2.    The question whether an importation of goods is non-
                                                                                commercial, within the meaning of Article 45(2)(b) of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
                                                                                a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended
                                                                                by Council Regulation (EC) No 355/94 of 14 February 1994,
                                                                                must be examined case by case on the basis of an overall
                                                                                assessment of the circumstances, taking into account the nature
                                                                                of the importation and the quantity of goods involved, the
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           frequency with which those goods are imported by the traveller
                                                                                concerned, but also, where appropriate, taking account of that
                                                                                traveller’s lifestyle and habits or of his family environment.
                             4 June 2002
in Case C-99/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige): Kenny Roland                        3.    Article 45 of Regulation No 918/83, as amended by
                             Lyckeskog (1)                                        Regulation No 355/94, precludes national administrative
                                                                                instructions or practices which impose binding quantitative
(Questions for a preliminary ruling — Obligation to refer                         limits on relief from customs duties or which would have
— Court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no                           the effect of creating an irrebuttable presumption that the
judicial remedy under national law — Interpretation of                            importation concerned is commercial by reason of the quantity
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Community system of                                  of goods imported.
                     reliefs from customs duty)
                           (2002/C 169/11)
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-99/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Hovrätt för Västra Sverige (Sweden) for a preliminary


title: Case T-87/00: Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 163/31
The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the              Action brought on 13 April 2000 by Mag Instrument, Inc.
same as in Case T-76/00.                                                against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-88/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/62)
Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Bank für Arbeit
und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                     (Language of the case: German)
                            Designs)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                         (Case T-87/00)                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                        (2000/C 163/61)                                 13 April 2000 by Mag Instrument, Inc., of Ontario, California,
                                                                        United States of America, represented by Wedig von der
                                                                        Osten-Sacken, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Hoffmann Eitle, Mu-
                  (Language of the case: German)                        nich (Federal Republic of Germany).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
11 April 2000 by the Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft,                    — annul the decision adopted on 14 February 2000 by the
Vienna, represented by Guido Kucsko, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs                Second Board of Appeal with regard to
Schönherr Barfuss Torggler & Partner, Vienna.
                                                                            — application No R 0237/1999-2: Mini Maglite pocket
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      torch manufactured by the applicant;
— annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2000 by the
                                                                            — application No R 0238/1999-2: MagLite 3C Cell
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                pocket torch manufactured by the applicant;
    the Internal Market concerning application No 000387233
    for the registration of ‘EASYBANK’ as a Community trade
    mark;                                                                   — application No R 0239/1999-2: MagLite 3D Cell
                                                                                pocket torch manufactured by the applicant;
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
    to pay the costs.
                                                                            — application No R 0240/1999-2: Mag Charger pocket
                                                                                torch manufactured by the applicant;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            — application No R 0241/1999-2: Solitaire pocket torch
The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘EASYBANK’ —                       manufactured by the applicant;
cerned:                       application No 387233
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Goods or service con-         goods and services in Class 36
cerned:                       (direct banking services, in par-
                              ticular electronic banking ser-
                              vices)                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision contested be-        refusal of registration by the
fore the Board of Ap-         examiner                                  The trade marks con-          three-dimensional marks in the
peal:                                                                   cerned:                       form of pocket torches — appli-
                                                                                cation Nos 139527, 119552,
Grounds of claim:             — misapplication of Article                                             206789, 206689, 206870
                                  7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
                                  40/94                                 Goods or service con-         Goods in Classes 9 and 11 (in
                              — misapplication of Article               cerned:                       particular, pocket torches with
                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                                       accessories)
                                  40/94
                                                                        Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        fore the Board of Ap-         examiner
                                                                        peal:


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 February 1995 in Case T-2/95 R: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v. Council of the European Union

text:
3 . 6 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/21
the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
260, p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),                                 of 8 March 1995
composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
Vesterdorf, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,            in Case T-2/93 DEP: Société Anonyme à Participation
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 19 95 , in            Ouvrière Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Commission
which the Court :                                                                  of the European Communities (*)
                                                                                (Competition — Taxation of costs)
I. dismisses the application;                                                                   ( 95/C 137/52 )
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                          (Language of the Case: French)
(') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .                                    In Case T-2/93 : Societe Anonyme a Participation Ouvriere
                                                                     Compagnie Nationale Air France , established in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Eduard Marissens, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities ( Agents : F. E. Gonzalez Diaz and G.
                                                                     de Bergues ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             and Northern Ireland ( Agents : J. D. Colahan and C. Vajda ),
                       of 27 April 1995                              with an address for service in Luxemburg at the British
                                                                     Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt, TAT SA, established at
in Case T-443/93 : Casillo Grani snc v. Commission of the
                                                                     Tours ( France ), represented by Antoine Winckler, of the
                  European Communities ( l )                         Paris Bar, and Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, with an address
 (State aids — Applicant declared bankrupt — Interest in             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and
  bringing the proceedings — No need to give a decision)             Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, and Britisch Airways pic, established
                          (9 SIC 137/51 )                            at Hounslow (United Kingdom ), represented by William
                                                                     Allan and James E. Flynn, Solicitor, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — application for taxation of the
                                                                     costs payable by the applicant to the intervener TAT SA
In Case T-443/93 : Casillo Grani snc , established in San            pursuant to the judgment of the Court of 19 May 1994 in
Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy, represented by Mario Siragusa,            Case T-2/93 Air France v. Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-323
Maurizio D'Albora and Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini,               — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended
respectively of the Bars of Rome , Naples and Bologna, with          composition ), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of              Kalogeropoulos , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
the European Communities ( Agents : M. Nolin, D. Calleja y           on 6 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
Crespo and R. Lyal ), supported by Italgrani SpA,
established in Naples, Italy, represented by Aurelio
Pappalardo , of the Trapani Bar, Luigi Sico and Felice                The total costs payable by the applicant to the intervener
Casucci , of the Naples Bar, Massimo Annesi and Massimo               TAT SA are fixed in the sum of FF 220 000.
Merola, of the Rome Bar with an address for service in
                                                                      (') OJ No C 45 , 17 . 2 . 1993 .
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
Albert l er — application for the annulment of Commission
Decision No 91/474/EEC of 16 August 1991 concerning
aids granted by the Italian Government to Italgrani SpA for
the setting up of an agri-foodstuffs complex in the
Mezzogiorno ( OJ 1991 L 254, p. 14 ) — the Court of First                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),                             OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,                                 of 24 February 1995
A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges, J.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              in Case T-2/95 R: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v.
given a judgment on 27 April 1995 , in which it:                                    Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/53 )
 1 . ordered Case T-443/93 to be removed from the
      Register;                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
 2 . ordered the applicant to bear the costs including those         In Case T-2/95 R: Industrie des Poudres Spheriques,
      incurred by the intervener.                                    Annemasse ( France ), represented by Chantal Momege, of
                                                                     the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 (M OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
                                                                     the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v.
                                                                      Council of the European Union (Agents : R. Torrent, J.
                                                                     Monteiro and P. Bentley) — application for suspension of
                                                                     the operation, in so far as concerns the applicant, of Council
 ---pagebreak--- No C 137/22           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
Regulation ( EC ) No 2557/94 of 19 October 1994 imposing               Arlon ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of calcium metal             Demaseure and Ariane Tournel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
originating in the People's Republic of China and Russia ( OJ          address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
1994 L 270, p. 27 ) — the President of the Court of First              Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
Instance made an order on 24 February 1995 , the operative             the European Communities ( Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira ) —
part of which is as follows :                                          application for suspension of the implementation of the
                                                                       decision of 18 January 1995 whereby the appointing
1 . the application for suspension of the operation of the             authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary measure
     Regulation is dismissed;                                          of removal from post without withdrawal of entitlement to
                                                                       retirement pension provided for by Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the
2 . there is no need to rule on the applications to                    Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
     intervene;                                                        — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                       on 31 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as
3.   the costs are reserved.                                           follows :
                                                                       1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                       2.   the costs are reserved.
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 15 March 1995
in Case T-6/95 R: Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop, arl v.
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( 95/C 137/54 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                  OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 April 1995
In Case T-6/95 R : Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop , arl, having         in    Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v.
its registered office in Lonigo ( Italy ), represented by Ivone                 Commission of the European Communities
Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue                                            ( 95/C 137/56 )
Albert l er, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro ) —
application for suspension of the operation of Article 1(1 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 of
21 December 1994 introducing a further derogation from                 In Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
the detailed rules for the delivery by producers of the table          spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
wine they are required to deliver for compulsory distillation          residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter
in respect of the 1993/94 wine year ( OJ 1994 L 332, p. 32 )           Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel, with an address for
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer,
on 15 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as                   1 Rue Roger Barthel, Bereldange, v. Commission of the
follows :
                                                                       European Communities (Agents : J. Griesmar, J. Burrall and
                                                                       B. Wagenbaur ) — application for interim measures
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                 concerning, primarily, an order for suspension of the
2.   the costs are reserved.
                                                                       implementation of an alleged decision of the Luxembourg
                                                                       Claims Office whereby the applicant was to cease to be
                                                                       covered by the sickness insurance scheme common to the
                                                                       institutions of the European Communities with effect from
                                                                       31 March 1995 , and, as a subsidiary plea, an order that such
                                                                       cover should not cease on the expiry of the period prescribed
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                  by Article 72 ( lb ) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               European Communities, namely one year after the date of
                                                                       the decree absolute of divorce of the applicant — the
                      of 31 March 1995                                 President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the               10 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                    European Communities
                         ( 95 /C 137/55 )                              1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                (Language of the case: French)                         2.   the costs are reserved.
In Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels , an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Case T-501/07: Action brought on 24 December 2007 — RS Arbeitsschutz v OHIM — RS Components (RS)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/53

         Action brought on 24 December 2007 — RS Arbeitsschutz v OHIM — RS Components (RS)
   (Case T-501/07)
   (2008/C 64/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: R. S. Arbeitsschutz Bedarfshandesgesellschaft mbH (Kaltenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Ivens, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RS Components Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 October 2007, notified to the applicant on 26 October 2007 in Case R 531/2007-2 and of the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 February 2007 ruling on Opposition No B 902 660.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community figurative trade mark composed of a device of a stylised glove or hand and the bold capital letters ‘RS’ for goods in class 9, 17 and 25 — application No 4 113 981

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: RS Components Ltd

      Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative trade mark ‘RS’ for goods in class 9, 17 and 25

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case T-20/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014  — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions and invalidity allowance — Retirement on grounds of invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Composition — Appointment of doctors — Failure on the part of the official concerned to appoint the second doctor — The second doctor appointed by the President of the Court of Justice — Appointment of a third doctor by common accord between the first and second doctors appointed — Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations — Action at first instance dismissed after referral back by the General Court)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-20/13) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions and invalidity allowance - Retirement on grounds of invalidity - Invalidity Committee - Composition - Appointment of doctors - Failure on the part of the official concerned to appoint the second doctor - The second doctor appointed by the President of the Court of Justice - Appointment of a third doctor by common accord between the first and second doctors appointed - Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations - Action at first instance dismissed after referral back by the General Court))
   2014/C 282/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Frist Chamber) of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Luigi Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case T-137/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of the colours green and yellow) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours green and yellow — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Relative ground for refusal — Earlier unregistered national mark consisting of a combination of the colours green and yellow — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of the colours green and yellow)
   (Case T-137/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours green and yellow - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Relative ground for refusal - Earlier unregistered national mark consisting of a combination of the colours green and yellow - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2009/C 297/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BCS SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli and F. Santonocito, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Deere & Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: J. Gray, Solicitor, and A. Tornato, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 (Case R 222/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between BCS SpA and Deere & Company.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BCS SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Action brought on 24 April 1995 by Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-106/95)

text:
No C 159/28        TEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 24 April 1995 by Fédération Française             Moreover, the decision in question breaches Community
des Sociétés d'Assurances and Others against the                    law rules . Both the French authorities and the Commission
        Commission of the European Communities                      consider that they are able to justify the favourable
                       ( Case T-106/95 )                            treatment accorded to the post office by virtue of public
                                                                    interest requirements and in particular of the requirements
                         ( 95/C 159/57 )                            of providing a service throughout the whole of the national
                                                                    territory and of participation in regional development. In
               (Language of tbe case: French)                       accordance with Community law, the legality of State aid
                                                                    under Community law must be examined solely in the light
An action against the Commission of the European                    of its effect on trade and not of its aim. The applicants
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   observe in that respect that, according to the case-law of the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 April 1995 by            Court of Justice :
Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances , whose
registered office is at Paris, Union des Sociétés Etrangères        ( a ) the intended aims of State aid cannot suffice to justify
d'Assurances, whose registered office is at Paris, Groupe des              granting such aid to an undertaking even when it is
Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles, whose registered office is in              entrusted with the operation of services of general
Noisy-le-Grand ( France ), Fédération Nationale des                        interest;
Syndicats d'Agents Généreaux d'Assurances, whose
registered office is at Paris , Fédération Française des
Courtiers    d'Assurances      et de    Réassurances,    whose      ( b ) the fiscal nature or social aim of aid granted cannot
registered office is at Paris, and Bureau International des                suffice to shield it from Article 92 of the Treaty;
Producteurs d'Assurances et de Réassurances , whose
registered office is at Paris, represented by Dominique             (c ) it is not even necessary for trade between Member
Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                States to have been affected, since a measure contrary to
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue                        Community law must be prohibited where it has an
Zithe .                                                                    influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the
                                                                           pattern of trade .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission of 21 February               Finally, the applicants point out the inconsistency of the
    1995 ,                                                          Commission itself when, after having considered that the
                                                                    tax advantage at issue does not go beyond that which may
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                       be justified in order to ensure the achievement of public
                                                                    interest obligations which the post office is required to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 perform, it nonetheless requests the French authorities to
                                                                    ensure that the accounting organization of the post office
The applicants, several associations representing the               observes Community law rules .
insurance sector, challenge the decision of the Commission
of 21 February 1995 , since they consider compatible with
Article 92 of the EC Treaty the provisions contained in the
French Law of 2 July 1 9 90 on the reform of the organization
of the French public post office and France Telecom . That
Law, which conferred upon the post office new and
particularly extensive powers in matters of financial
insurance services, had in particular the effect of giving it the
means of intervening in every field of insurance.                   Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Michel Pouzol against
                                                                         the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Furthermore, the abovementioned Law confers on the post                                      (Case T-115/95 )
office a considerable number of advantages, as regards both                                    ( 95/C 159/58 )
taxation ( deferred payment of company tax, tax on salaries
and local direct charges) and procurement of its assets .
According to the applicants, the whole of these measures                              (Language of tbe case: French)
constitute a substantial advantage for the post office by
comparison with the charges which normally burden the
budget of every newly incorporated insurance undertaking            An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
and every newly created broking company governed by the             Communities was brought before the Court of First
general provisions .                                                Instance of the European Communities on 8 May 1995 by
                                                                    Michel Pouzol, residing at Bertrange ( Grand Duchy of
First, they argue that the analysis and the methodology             Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
chosen by the Commission in the disputed decision are               Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
highly questionable inasmuch as they rely on information            address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sari,
provided by the French authorities themselves with regard            1 Rue Glesener .
to the assessment of the obligations flowing from the task of
providing public services and the extra cost which they claim
they generate.                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/37

         Removal from the register of Case C-309/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/108)
   By order of 11 December 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-309/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social N. 33): Ana Isabel López Gil v Instituto Nacional de Empleo (Inem).

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2003 in Case C-130/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 76/464/EEC — Pollution of the aquatic environment — Pollution reduction programmes which include quality objectives for certain dangerous substances)

text:
C 184/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 June 2003
                            of 12 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-145/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Italian Republic (1)
in Case C-130/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — No proper
                      nities v French Republic (1)
                                                                                letter of formal notice — Application inadmissible)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                                    (2003/C 184/11)
Directive 76/464/EEC — Pollution of the aquatic environ-
ment — Pollution reduction programmes which include                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      quality objectives for certain dangerous substances)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                             (2003/C 184/10)
                                                                              In Case C-145/01, Commission of the European Communities
                      (Language of the case: French)                          (Agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanzaassisted
                                                                              by D. Del Gaizo): Application for a declaration that, by
                                                                              maintaining in force Article 47(5) and (6) of Law No 428 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     29 December 1990 laying down provisions for compliance
                       the European Court Reports)                            with the obligations arising from Italy's membership of the
                                                                              European Communities (Community Law for 1990) (ordinary
                                                                              supplement to GURI No 10 of 12 January 1991, p. 5), which:
                                                                              —     allow for the non-application of the automatic transfer of
In Case C-130/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                all contracts of employment or employment relationships,
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v French Republic
                                                                                from the transferor to the transferee, in respect of under-
(Agents: D. Colas and G. de Bergues): Application for a
                                                                                takings subject to an approved composition procedure
declaration that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction
                                                                                involving the transfer of assets or a special administration
programmes which include quality objectives for the
                                                                                procedure, where those undertakings pursue their activity
99 dangerous substances listed in the annex to the application
                                                                                after the transfer, and
and failing to communicate a summary of those programmes
and the results of their implementation to the Commission, in
                                                                              —     in respect of undertakings declared to be ‘in a situation of
breach of Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May
                                                                                economic crisis’, do not provide for the transfer, from the
1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
                                                                                transferor to the transferee, of employees and debts
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community
                                                                                arising from a contract of employment or employment
(OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                                relationship,
its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken and                            the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:                 approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                              the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers
                                                                              of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction                  L 61, p. 26), in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof, the Court
      programmes which include quality objectives for the                     (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
      99 dangerous substances listed in the annex to the application          President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,
      which comply with the requirements of Article 7 of Council              F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
      Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June
      certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic envir-         2003, in which it:
      onment of the Community, the French Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                            1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                              2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
2.    Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.                                 the costs.
(1) OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.                                                      (1) OJ C 173 of 16.06.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 1997 in Case C-352/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Pontoise): Phytheron International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Trade Mark Directive - Plant health product - Parallel import - Exhaustion)

text:
No C 142/6              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 5 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      ( Commercial Court), Pontoise, France, for a preliminary
                          ( Sixth Chamber )                               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                          between Phytheron International SA and Jean Bourdon SA
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                          — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
in Case C-323/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C.
the Saarlandisches Oberlandesgericht): David Charles                      Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH,                      Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
                          in liquidation ( ! )                            and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;
                                                                          H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
(Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of                           given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has
                nationality — Security for costs)                         ruled :
                            ( 97/C 142/11 )
                                                                          Article 7 of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of
                (Language of the case: German)                            21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted
                                                                          as precluding application of a national rule in Member
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          State A under which the owner of a trade mark may
In Case C-323/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               prevent importation of a product protected by the mark
of the EC Treaty from the Saarlandisches Oberlandesge                    where
richt ( Saarland Higher Regional Court) ( Germany), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 — the product has been manufactured in a non-member
court between David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen                           country,
Hayes, on the one hand, and Kronenberger GmbH, in
liquidation, on the other — on the interpretation of the                  — it has been imported into Member State B by the
first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court                      owner of the mark or by another company in the same
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President                       group as the owner of the mark,
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn
( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A.                    — it has been lawfully acquired in Member State B by an
La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                         independent trader, who has exported it to Member
given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has                             State A,
ruled :
                                                                          — it has not been processed and the packaging has not
Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as
                                                                               been changed, apart from the addition to the label of
precluding a Member State from requiring security for                          certain information to comply with the requirements
costs to be furnished by a national of another Member                          of the legislation of the Member State of import, and
State who has brought an action in one of its civil courts
against one of its nationals where that requirement may
                                                                          — the trade mark rights are held in Member States A and
not be imposed on its own nationals who have neither
                                                                               B by the same group.
assets nor a residence in that country, in a situation where
 the action is connected with the exercise of fundamental
                                                                           O OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
freedoms guaranteed by Community law.
 (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                       of 20 March 1997
                         of 20 March 1997
                                                                          in Case C-13/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-352/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 the Belgian Conseil d'Etat): Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian
 the Tribunal de Commerce, Pontoise ): Phytheron                                                        State (')
            International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA ( l )                      (Obligation to give prior notification under Directive 83/
 (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — Trade Mark                         189/EEC — Technical regulations and specifications —
 Directive — Plant health product — Parallel import —                          Marking of products subject to environmental tax)
                               Exhaustion)
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/ 13 )
                             ( 97/C 142/12 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
   (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 Case C-352/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               In Case C-13/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                            of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Conseil d'Etat ( Council


title: Case F-80/12: Action brought on 26 July 2012 — ZZ v EIT

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/18

         Action brought on 26 July 2012 — ZZ v EIT
   (Case F-80/12)
   2012/C 319/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision assigning the Applicant to a different job position.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision appointing the Appellant as adviser as announced to him on 16 September 2011, and confirmed by his updated job description as communicated to him on 6 October 2011;

               —

               if needed, annul the implicit decision rejecting the Appellant’s complaint, which he lodged on 16 December 2011;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay all costs.


title: Case C-225/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Juan Pérez García, José Arias Neira, Fernando Barrera Castro, Dolores Verdun Espinosa, successor to José Bernal Fernández v Familienkasse Nürnberg

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Juan Pérez García, José Arias Neira, Fernando Barrera Castro, Dolores Verdun Espinosa, successor to José Bernal Fernández v Familienkasse Nürnberg
   (Case C-225/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Nürnberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Juan Pérez García, José Arias Neira, Fernando Barrera Castro, Dolores Verdun Espinosa, successor to José Bernal Fernández

      Defendant: Familienkasse Nürnberg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 77(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that family allowances need not be granted by the former State of employment to persons who receive pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work or occupational disease under the legislation of more than one Member State and whose pension entitlement is based on the legislation of the former State of employment (national pension entitlement) if provision is made in the State of residence for a comparable, higher benefit, which is, however, incompatible with another benefit for which the person concerned, having been given the choice, has opted?

               2.

               Is Article 78(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that family allowances for orphans of a deceased employed or self-employed person who was subject to the legislation of several Member States and who enjoyed a notional entitlement to an orphan’s pension based on the legislation of the former State of employment (potential national pension entitlement) need not be granted by the former State of employment if provision is made in the State of residence for a comparable, higher benefit, which is, however, incompatible with another benefit for which the person concerned, having been given a choice, has opted?

               3.

               Does the same apply to a benefit under Article 77 or Article 78 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 for which provision is generally made in the children’s State of residence, but for which the person concerned, as someone who is not being given a choice, cannot opt?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1997 L 149, p. 2)