title: Case C-421/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
15.11.2003            EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/41
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission                             the environment of genetically modified organisms and
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                         repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or at any rate
                          lic of Germany                                       by not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic
                                                                               of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                         (Case C-420/03)                                       directive;
                         (2003/C 275/64)                                 2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Pleas in law and main arguments
ties on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Prof. Dr Ulrich Wölker, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       The period for transposition expired on 17 October 2002.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              (1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
      2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into
      the environment of genetically modified organisms and
      repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or at any rate
                                                                         Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
      by not informing the Commission thereof, the Federal
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                                                         Netherlands
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs                                      (Case C-422/03)
      of the proceedings.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/66)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
The period for transposition expired on 17 October 2002.                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.                                                 Communities, represented by Michel Van Beek.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
                                                                               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                               Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                               the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                               Austria
                                                                               into the environment of genetically modified organisms
                                                                               and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or in any
                         (Case C-421/03)                                       event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                               Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
                         (2003/C 275/65)                                       obligations under that directive;
                                                                         2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Prof. Dr Ulrich Wölker, with an              Pleas in law and main arguments
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The period for transposition of the Directive expired on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              17 October 2002.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive         (1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
      2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into


title: Case T-302/12: Action brought on 6 July 2012 — Torrefacção Camelo v OHIM — Pato Hermanos (Decoration of packaging for coffee)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/17

         Action brought on 6 July 2012 — Torrefacção Camelo v OHIM — Pato Hermanos (Decoration of packaging for coffee)
   (Case T-302/12)
   2012/C 273/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Torrefacção Camelo Lda (Campo Maior, Portugal) (represented by: J. Massaguer Fuentes, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lorenzo Pato Hermanos, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should declare, in view of the lodging of this pleading and the documents attached to it, that the direct action against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 April 2012 in Case R 2378/2010-3 has been lodged within the prescribed period and in the correct form and, following the appropriate procedural steps, deliver judgment upholding the present action, thereby annulling the contested decision and upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division of 26 November 2010 which declared invalid Community design No 0 0070 6940-0001, and expressly order Lorenzo Patos Hermanos, SA to pay the costs if it opposes the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: design with a red background, coffee beans with a white outline scattered at random over the red background, and two upper and lower horizontal yellow borders placed over the red background, for goods in Class 99-00 of the Locarno Classification — Community design No 0 0070 6940-0001

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lorenzo Pato Hermanos, SA

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: application for a declaration of invalidity granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002


title: Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Société Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote and by Enterprise Minière et Chimique against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-30/95)

text:
No C 74/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 3 . 95
the future reutilization of such ground residue has not been                     permanently in a single unit from a financial and
established.                                                                     economic point of view ?
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                                  2.5 . Is an exchange of shares which is carried out in
(2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                                      order to bring about a horizontal setting-off of tax
(3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                          losses between the participant undertakings
                                                                                within a fiscal unit as referred to in Article 15 of
                                                                                the Wet op de Vennootschapsbelasting ( Law on
                                                                                CorporationTax) 1969 a valid commercial reason
                                                                                for the exchange for the purposes of Article 1 1 of
                                                                                the Directive ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 26 January 1995
in the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der
        Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2
                          ( Case C-28/95 )                             Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Société Commerciale
                             95/C 74/12 )                              des Potasses et de l'Azote and by Enterprise Minière et
                                                                       Chimique against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ( Case C-30/95 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
(Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 26 January                                             95/C 74/13 )
1995, which was received at the Court Registry
on 6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in                      An action originally brought before the Court of First
the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der                           Instance by Societe Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote
Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 on the                       and by Enterprise Miniere et Chimique was referred to the
following questions:                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       8 February 1995 . The Cour^of First Instance made an order
1 . May questions be referred to the Court of Justice                 declining jurisdiction and transferred the action, originally
     concerning the interpretation of the provisions and              registered as Case T-88/94, to the Court of Justice for a
     scope of a directive of the Council of the European              ruling on the application for annulment.
     Communities even where the directive is not directly
     applicable to the specific circumstances of the case but it      The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a
     is the national legislature's intention that those               notice in Official Journal No C 103 of 11 April 1994,
     circumstances are to be treated in the same manner as a          p. 13 .
     situation to which the directive does apply?
2. If Question 1 above is answered in the affirmative:
     2.1 . Can there Be an exchange of shares within the
           meaning of Article 2 (d ) of Council Directive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
           90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 if the acquiring                Grande Instance, Saint Nazaire, by judgment of that court
           company within the meaning of Article 2 (h) does           of 19 December 1994 in the case of Sari Polypieces v.
           not itself carry on a business ?                                Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique
                                                                                (Case C-33/95 )
     2.2 . Is an exchange of shares within the meaning of
           Article 2 (d) precluded by the fact that the same                                    ( 95/C 74/14 )
           natural person who was the sole shareholder in,
           and director of, the acquired company before the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           exchange is the director of, and sole shareholder          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
           in, the acquiring company after the exchange ?             Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Saint Nazaire, of
                                                                      19 December 1994, which was received at the Court
     2.3 . Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning          Registry on 13 February 1995 .
           of Article 2 ( d ) only if its effect is to merge the
           business of the acquiring company and that of
           another permanently in a single unit from a                The Regional Court asks the Court ofJustice to give a ruling
           financial and economic point of view?                      on the following question:
     2.4. Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning           is the present system for taxing motor vehicles under Article
           of Article 2 (d ) only if its effect is to merge the       1599 G of the French General Tax Code compatible with
           businesses of two or more acquired companies               Article 95 of the EEC Treaty, in that it provides for the


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-240/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Directive 79/409/EEC — Protection of wild birds and their habitats — Special protection areas)

text:
26.4.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 101/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
Request by the Council of the European Union for an                          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
           Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC                             European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Compo-
                                                                             sition) in Case T-92/98 Interporc v Commission [1999] ECR
                           (Opinion 1/03)                                    II-3521, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the
                                                                             other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
                          (2003/C 101/01)                                    European Communities (Agent: U. Wölker), the Court, compo-
                                                                             sed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has received                R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Cham-
a request for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC, lodged               bers, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
at the Court Registry on 10 March 2003 by the Council of the                 P. Jann, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
European Union, represented by J. Schutte and J.-P. Hix, acting              Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
as Agents.                                                                   given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
The Council of the European Union asks the Court of Justice                  1.    Dismisses the appeal;
to reply to the following question:
                                                                             2.    Orders Interporc Im- und Export GmbH to pay the costs.
Does conclusion of the new Lugano Convention on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and                (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
commercial matters, as provided for at points 8 to 12 of this
document, fall entirely within the Community’s exclusive
competence or is competence shared between the Community
and the Member States?
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 6 March 2003                                                              of 6 March 2003
in Case C-41/00 P: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v                           in Case C-240/00: Commission of the European Communi-
       Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                                             ties v Republic of Finland ( 1)
(Appeals — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Access
                                                                             (Directive 79/409/EEC — Protection of wild birds and their
to documents — Documents held by the Commission and
                                                                                habitats — Special protection areas)
emanating from the Member States or third countries —
                          Authorship rule)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/03)
                          (2003/C 101/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-41/00 P, Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, estab-                     In Case C-240/00, Commission of the European Communities
lished in Hamburg (Germany), (Agent: G.M. Berrisch): Appeal                  (Agents: E. Paasivirta and R.B. Wainwright) v Republic of
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              26.4.2003
Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä): Application for a declaration                     Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of
that, by failing to classify special protection areas fully and              21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing
definitively, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended and updated by
obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/              Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds                    95, of Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                   amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen                 Treaty (now Article 50 EC), and of Article 1 of the Protocol to
and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha                        the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,              and Fundamental Freedoms, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rod-
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in                   ríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
which it:                                                                    C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
                                                                             D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris,
(1) Declares that, by failing to classify fully and definitively the         F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
      SPAs in its territory, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil    Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild                 on 25 February 2003, in which it has ruled:
      birds.
(2) Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             1.   Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                                14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                                employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
                                                                                their families moving within the Community, as amended and
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
                                                                                1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95
                                                                                of 22 December 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that
                        of 25 February 2003
                                                                                enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that provision
                                                                                to pensioners staying in a Member State other than their State
in Case C-326/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              of residence is not subject to the condition that the illness which
from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Idryma                            necessitated the treatment in question manifested itself suddenly
     Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis (1)                         during such a stay, making that treatment immediately
                                                                                necessary. That provision therefore precludes a Member State
(Social security — Hospital treatment of a pensioner during                       from subjecting that enjoyment to such a condition.
a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he
resides — Conditions for funding — Articles 31 and 96 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 31 and 93 of
                   Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)
                           (2003/C 101/04)                                   2.   Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
                                                                                updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                lation No 3096/95, precludes a Member State from subjecting
                                                                                the enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            provision to any authorisation procedure.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-326/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court              3.   The provision and funding of the benefits in kind referred to in
between Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) and Vasilios                           Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
Ioannidis on the interpretation of Articles 31 and 36 of                          updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                        lation No 3096/95, must normally take place in accordance
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                    with the provisions of that article in conjunction with Article 36
self-employed persons and to members of their families                            of that regulation and Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                            (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ                            procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
1983 L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)                          as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as
No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10), of                         amended by Regulation No 3096/95.


title: Case F-99/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Payment of arrears of remuneration — Locus standi — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/51

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-99/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Remuneration - Payment of arrears of remuneration - Locus standi - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 325/82
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of salary arrears for the period from 1 June 2005 to 21 July 2010.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 67.


title: Case T-298/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Atlas v EUIPO (EFEKT PERLENIA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark EFEKT PERLENIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Atlas v EUIPO (EFEKT PERLENIA)
   (Case T-298/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark EFEKT PERLENIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 232/24)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlas sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2015 (Case R 2352/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EFEKT PERLENIA as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Atlas sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-557/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — BrandGroup v OHIM — Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele (SPEZOOMIX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SPEZOOMIX — Earlier Community word mark Spezi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — BrandGroup v OHIM — Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele (SPEZOOMIX)
   (Case T-557/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SPEZOOMIX - Earlier Community word mark Spezi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 136/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BrandGroup GmbH (Bechtsrieth, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Schneider and A. Schifko, and subsequently A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Schlecht, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2014 (Case R 941/2013-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG and BrandGroup GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BrandGroup GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case C-218/07: Order of the President of the Court of 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-218/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/55)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-473/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie van België by judgment of 22 October 2004 in the case of Plumex v Young Sports N.V.

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie van België by judgment of 22 October 2004 in the case of Plumex v Young Sports N.V.
   (Case C-473/04)
   (2005/C 19/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of 22 October 2004 by the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgian Court of Cassation), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Plumex v Young Sports N.V. on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the service defined in Articles 4 to 11 inclusive [of Regulation No 1348/2000] (1) the principal method of service and service directly by post, as defined in Article 14 [of Regulation No 1348/2000], a secondary method of service, with the proviso that the first method takes precedence over the second method when both are effected in accordance with the legal provisions?

               2.

               In the case of a combination of methods of service in accordance with Articles 4 to 11 inclusive [of Regulation No 1348/2000], on the one hand, and directly by post in accordance with Article 14 [of Regulation No 1348/2000], on the other, does the period within which the addressee of the service may lodge an appeal commence on the date of the service effected in accordance with Articles 4 to 11 inclusive and not on the date of service effected in accordance with Article 14?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37).


title: Case T-619/15: Action brought on 6 November 2015 — Badica and Kardiam v Council

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/68

         Action brought on 6 November 2015 — Badica and Kardiam v Council
   (Case T-619/15)
   (2016/C 027/86)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) (Bangui, Central African Republic), Kardiam (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: D. Luff and L. Defalque, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485 of 2 September 2015 and point B 1 of the Annex to that regulation in so far as the applicants are added to Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 of 10 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic;

               —

               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.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection. This plea is expressed in two parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging a failure on the part of the Council to notify the applicants individually of the decision to freeze funds;

                           —

                           second part, alleging a failure to disclose the evidence and the file, and infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of transparency.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the facts relating to the applicants’ activities resulting in an error of law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging defects in the examination carried out by the Council.


title: Case C-589/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — procedure brought by F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Interim taxation of capital gains and income from the disposal of holdings by a national foundation — Refusal of right to deduct from the taxable amount gifts to non-resident beneficiaries exempt from tax in the Member State of the foundation under a double taxation convention)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — procedure brought by F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt
   (Case C-589/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC - Interim taxation of capital gains and income from the disposal of holdings by a national foundation - Refusal of right to deduct from the taxable amount gifts to non-resident beneficiaries exempt from tax in the Member State of the foundation under a double taxation convention))
   (2015/C 371/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt

      Intervener: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 EC must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which, as regards interim tax which is charged on capital gains and income from the disposal of holdings of a resident private foundation, that foundation has the right to deduct from its taxable amount only gifts made in the course of a given assessment period that have been the subject of a tax levied within that period on the beneficiaries of those gifts in the Member State in which the foundation is taxed, whereas such a deduction is excluded by that national tax legislation where the beneficiaries reside in another Member State and are exempt, on the basis of a double taxation convention, from a tax that is otherwise charged on gifts in the Member State in which the foundation is taxed.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/2

         A new member of the Court takes the oath
   (2005/C 31/03)
   Mr Ó Caoimh, appointed Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 22 September 2004, (1) took the oath before the Court on 13 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 300 of 25.9.2004, p. 42.


title: Case C-32/00 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-125/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities, and T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 102/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
stemming from maternity insurance under the (Austrian)                      Appeal brought on 7 February 2000 by the Commission
Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social                of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
Security) (ASVG) or another (Austrian) federal law or to a                  ered on 1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the
maternity benefit under the (Austrian) Betriebshilfegesetz                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
exists, or existed, in respect of that child?                               Joined Cases T-125/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica
                                                                            GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by
                                                                            Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.                          the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
(2) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                                    Ireland, and the Council of the European Union, support-
(3) OJ 1992 L 136, p. 28.                                                   ed by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector
                                                                            (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            and T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH
                                                                            and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération
                                                                            Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                            Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
                                                                                and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-32/00 P)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
of the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that
court of 21 January 2009 in the case of Conseil National                                            (2000/C 102/24)
    de l’Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 December
                           (Case C-31/00)                                   1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-125/96 (1)
                                                                            Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer
                          (2000/C 102/23)                                   Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé
                                                                            Animale (Fedesa) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                            Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector
European Communities by judgment of the First Chamber of                    (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities, and
the Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) (Belgium) of                     T-152/96 (2) Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
21 January 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on                C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européen-
7 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Conseil            ne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the
National de l’Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen               European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
on the following question:                                                  rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Council of the
                                                                            European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                            the European Communities on 7 February 2000 by the
Do Articles 5 and 52 of the Treaty of Rome mean that the                    Commission of the European Communities, represented by
competent authority of a Member State before which a                        Mr Xavier Lewis, Member of the Legal Service, acting as agent,
Community national who holds a diploma obtained in another                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Member State makes an application for authorisation to                      Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
practise a profession to which access is, in accordance with
national legislation, subject to the possession of a diploma or
a vocational qualification, is required to take account of the              The Appellant claims that the Court should:
diploma relied upon by the applicant and to make a compari-
son between the competence and qualifications evidenced by
that diploma and the competence and qualifications required                 1. Annul that part of the judgment of the Court of First
under the national rules, even where there exists, with regard                  Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96
to the profession in question, a directive adopted by the                       Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boeh-
Council on the basis of Article 57(1) and (2) of the Treaty, and                ringer Sohn v. Council of the European Union and
that directive provides, so far as concerns courses of study                    T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
started or followed during a transitional period, an exhaustive                 C.H. Boehringer Sohn v. Commission of the European
list of the diplomas or certificates, awarded in the various                    Communities which annuls Commission Regulation (EC)
Member States, enabling practice of the profession concerned                    No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 amending Annex III of Council
in the other Member States, where the applicant falls within                    Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community
the scope of those transitional arrangements and the diploma                    procedure for the establishment of maximum residue
on which he relies is not included in that exhaustive list?                     limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
                                                                                animal origin (OJ 1996 L 170, p. 8) in so far as it restricts
                                                                                the validity of the MRLs which it establishes for clenbuterol
                                                                                to certain specified therapeutic indications for bovines and
                                                                                equines;
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 102/15
2. Dismiss the action for annulment of Regulation 1312/96              Pleas in law and main arguments
     lodged by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
     C.H. Boehringer Sohn in T-152/96 as unfounded;
                                                                       The existing waste management plans currently notified to the
3. Order Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.                  Commission under Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC do not
     Boehringer Sohn to pay the costs of this appeal;                  appear to cover the whole territory of the United Kingdom.
                                                                       From the information provided the Commission has had to
4. Order Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.                  conclude that the United Kingdom has not notified sufficient
     Boehringer Sohn to bear the costs of the action for               waste plans to cover the whole territory of the United
     annulment in Case T-152/96.                                       Kingdom.
                                                                       As regards Directive 91/689/EEC, an examination of Annex I
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        of the Reasoned Opinion shows that 21 of the notified plans
                                                                       do not contain the requisite information relating to hazardous
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance erred          waste. By virtue of Article 6 of this directive, the United
in law in finding that the Commission had exceeded its powers          Kingdom authorities are required to draw up plans for
by restricting the validity of the maximum residue limits              the management of hazardous waste. From the information
(MRLs) established in Regulation 1312/96.                              provided, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil this obli-
                                                                       gation.
The Commission also submits that the reasoning used to
support that conclusion is contradictory, incomplete and               Furthermore, as regards Directive 94/62/EC, only one plan
wrong.                                                                 appears to include a chapter on packaging waste. By virtue of
                                                                       Article 14 of this directive, the United Kingdom authorities are
                                                                       required to include a specific chapter on the management of
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996, p. 15.                                     packaging and packaging waste in an Article 7 waste plan.
(2) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996, p. 32.                                     From the information provided, the United Kingdom has failed
                                                                       to fulfil this obligation.
                                                                       (1) Of the Council of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975,
                                                                           p. 39).
                                                                       (2) Of the Council of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
                                                                           L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20).
Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of                 (3) Of the European Parliament and Council of 20 December 1994
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                        on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994,
                                                                           p. 10).
                         (Case C-35/00)
                        (2000/C 102/25)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                  Action brought on 14 February 2000 by the Commission
Adviser, and Ms Lena Ström, Legal Adviser, acting as agents,                   of the European Communities against Ireland
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
                                                                                (Case C-46/00)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 102/26)
— declare that, by failing to draw up waste-management
     plans in conformity with all the requirements of Directives       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     75/442/EEC (1), 91/689/EEC (2) and 94/62/EC (3) concern-          Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2000 by
     ing waste and/or inform the Commission thereof, the               the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     United Kingdom Government has failed to fulfil its obli-          by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, member
     gations under Articles 7, 6 and 14 respectively of these          of the Legal Service acting as agents, with an address for service
     Directives,                                                       at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the
                                                                       Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                           Luxembourg.


title: Case T-130/03: Action brought on 17 April 2003 by Alcon Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
5.7.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 158/23
Action brought on 17 April 2003 by Alcon Inc. against                   Action brought on 17 April 2003 by Gerolsteiner Brun-
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                 nen GmbH & Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                the Internal Market
                         (Case T-130/03)
                                                                                (Case T-131/03)
                         (2003/C 158/42)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/43)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: English)                             (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                        of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 April 2003 by Alcon Inc.,
Hünenberg, Switzerland, represented by Mr G. Breen, Solicitor,          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
with an address for service in Luxembourg. A further party to           Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Biofarma                 European Communities on 17 April 2003 by Gerolsteiner
(plc).                                                                  Brunnen GmbH & Co., Gerolstein, Germanty, represented by
                                                                        Dr A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer. A further party to the
                                                                        proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Kerry Group p.l.c.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the contested decision                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order OHIM to pay the costs
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                                                                              Office for Harmonization in the International Market
                                                                              (Trade Marks and Designs) of February 13, 2003 (case
                                                                              R275/2002-1) and to order costs against the OHIM
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-            The Applicant
munity trade mark:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘TRAVATAN’ —
sought:                       Application No 847590, for
                              products in class 5 (ophthalmic           Applicant for Com-             Kerry Group PLC.
                              pharamaceutical poducts)                  munity trade mark:
Proprietor of mark or         BIOFARMA PLC                              Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘KERRY Spring’
sign cited in the oppo-                                                 sought:                        — Application No 0000443135,
sition proceedings:                                                                                for products in class 32 (spring,
                                                                                mineral and aerated waters and
Mark or sign cited in         Italian word mark ‘TRIVASTAN’                                            other non-alcoholic drinks, fruit
                                                                                drinks and fruits juices, fruit fla-
opposition:                   for class 5 products.
                                                                                vored spring and mineral waters).
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the application.
sition Division:                                                        Proprietor of mark or          The applicant.
                                                                        sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                        sition proceedings:
Decision of the Board of      Refusal of the appeal.
Appeal:
                                                                        Mark or sign cited in          German trademark registration
                                                                        opposition:                    No 1100746 for the word ‘GER-
                                                                                RI’., for products in class 5 and 32.


title: Case C-160/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.
   (Case C-160/13)
   2013/C 178/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: X B.V.

      Question referred

   Must Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT for which that provision provides does not apply to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer is no, is the application of the exemption subject to the condition that the dental prostheses are supplied from abroad by a dentist and/or dental technician to a dentist or dental technician?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 131, 1.6.2002

text:
15.6.2002        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         C 144/65
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 144/127)
             Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
          OJ C 131, 1.6.2002
          Past publications
          OJ C 118, 18.5.2002
          OJ C 109, 4.5.2002
          OJ C 97, 20.4.2002
          OJ C 84, 6.4.2002
          OJ C 68, 16.3.2002
          OJ C 56, 2.3.2002
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-62/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  29 November 2005  — Union Pigments v Commission (Competition — Article 81 EC — Cartel — Zinc phosphate market — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment — Action for annulment)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2005 — Union Pigments v Commission
   (Case T-62/02) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Cartel - Zinc phosphate market - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 36/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Union Pigments AS (Bergen, Norway) (represented by: J. Magne Langseth and T. Olavson Laake, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent)
   Application for
   partial annulment of Decision 2003/437/EC relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.027 — Zinc phosphate) (OJ 2002 L 153, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant,
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 1.6.2002.


title: Case T-166/99: Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Luis Fernando Andres de Dios and Others against the Council of the European Union

text:
2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 281/23
Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Luis Fernando Andres                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
de Dios and Others against the Council of the European
                               Union                                      — annul the decision taken by the selection board in compe-
                                                                               tition No COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicant from the
                          (Case T-166/99)                                      tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the said decision
                                                                               being contained in a letter sent to the applicant on 16 June
                                                                               1999;
                         (1999/C 281/43)
                                                                          — consequently, annul all of the steps taken and acts done
                   (Language of the case: French)                              subsequently in the procedure relating to competition
                                                                               No COM/A/10/98 which are vitiated by illegality;
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 July 1999 by Luis Fernando Andres de
Dios, Suzanne Kitlas and Jacques Verraes, residing in Brussels
(Belgium), and Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo, residing at               Pleas in law and main arguments
Càceres (Spain), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-
Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of               The applicant was a candidate in open competition No
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                COM/A110/98 for the constitution of a reserve list for the
                                                                          recruitment of administrators in career bracket A 7/A 6 in the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               fields of external relations and the management of aid to third
                                                                          countries. By letter of 16 June 1999, the selection board in the
— annul Council Decision 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999;                       competition informed the applicant that although she had
                                                                          obtained the minimum number of marks required for each of
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   the four tests, she had not been placed amongst the top 200
                                                                          candidates. In order to be included amongst those top 200
                                                                          candidates, the applicant had to have obtained 80.10 marks,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           that is to say, a further 3.72 marks. Consequently, the contest-
                                                                          ed decision excluded the applicant from admission to the
The contested decision is the same as that in issue in Case               subsequent tests in the competition.
T-107/99 Garcia Retortillo (1). The pleas in law and main
arguments are the same as those advanced in that case.
                                                                          The applicant maintains that:
The applicants argue, in particular, that, since the contested
decision was adopted on 30 April 1999, that is to say, on a               — the principle of equal treatment was disregarded in several
date on which neither the Treaty of Amsterdam nor Protocol                     respects, both when the pre-selection tests took place and
No 2 thereto had yet entered into force, it must be held in the                when those tests were marked;
present case that the decision in question lacks any legal basis.
                                                                          — the pre-selection tests are vitiated by a twofold procedural
                                                                               irregularity, which does not guarantee anonymity in the
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                                 processing of the tests or ensure that those tests will not
                                                                               be subject to manipulation;
                                                                          — the competition notice is irregular, in that it disregards the
                                                                               principle of equal treatment and Annex III to the Staff
                                                                               Regulations;
Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Carla Giulietti against                 — by providing incomplete information, the selection board
       the Commission of the European Communities                              failed to comply with the obligation to provide reasons;
                          (Case T-167/99)                                 — by failing to ensure that the pre-selection tests were held
                                                                               in a proper fashion and that the candidates were treated in
                                                                               that context in a strictly non-discriminatory manner, the
                         (1999/C 281/44)                                       defendant infringed the principle of the protection of
                                                                               legitimate expectations; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                         — the defendant committed a breach of the principle of good
                                                                               management and sound administration, which was further
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      aggravated by the fact that the pre-selection tests had
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     already had to be annulled once before on account of
European Communities on 13 July 1999 by Carla Giulietti,                       irregularities.
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
de Cessange.


title: Case F-89/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 1 December 2010 — Gagalis v Council (Civil service — Social security — Occupational accident — Partial permanent invalidity — Decision to take responsibility for 75 % of the costs of a thermal cure — Reimbursement for care under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and additional reimbursement under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Exclusion of cover for subsistence expenses — Refusal of additional reimbursement — Interpretation of Article 73(3) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 9 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and occupational disease)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/62

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 1 December 2010 — Gagalis v Council
   (Case F-89/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Social security - Occupational accident - Partial permanent invalidity - Decision to take responsibility for 75 % of the costs of a thermal cure - Reimbursement for care under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and additional reimbursement under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Exclusion of cover for subsistence expenses - Refusal of additional reimbursement - Interpretation of Article 73(3) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 9 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and occupational disease)
   2011/C 30/119
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spyridon Gagalis (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer, then by N. Lhoëst and L. Delhaye, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the defendant’s decision refusing to reimburse the applicant, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, 75 % of all the costs relating to a thermal cure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Gagalis to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009, p. 45.


title: Case C-261/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2008 — María Julia Zurita García v Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2008 — María Julia Zurita García v Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia
   (Case C-261/08)
   (2008/C 209/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Julia Zurita García

      Defendant: Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia
   Question referred
   Should Article 62(1) and (2)(a) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and Articles 5, 11 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, and the case-law which interprets it, which permits the substitution of the expulsion of any ‘third country national’ who does not have documentation authorising him to enter and remain in the territory of the European Union by the imposition of a fine?

      (1)  OJ L 105, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 21 March 1996 by Bayer AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-41/96)

text:
18 . 5 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 145/ 13
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a grade B 5 member of the temporary staff,            The contested decision states that the prohibition
contests the decision of the selection board in internal             precluding the export to other Member States of the
competition COM/T/B/96 refusing to admit the applicant to            products known as 'Andalate' and 'Andalate 20 mg LP',
the tests in the said competition on the ground that he did          alternatively 'Andalat' and 'Andalat-Retard ', agreed in the
not meet the condition of the completion of a minimum of             context of the continuing dealings between the applicant
three years ' uninterrupted service with the European                and its wholesalers in France or Spain, constitutes an
Communities as a member of the temporary staff.                      infringement by the applicant of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC
                                                                     Treaty; it enjoins the applicant to cease the infringement and
He points out in that regard that his application was rejected       imposes on it a fine of ECU 3 000 000 .
on account of an interruption of 15 days in the contractual
relations between him and the Commission .                           The applicant contends that its commercial practices are
                                                                     limited to a unilateral fixing of quotas by means of purely
He advances the following pleas in support of his action :           internal measures, without any agreement with the
                                                                     wholesalers . It submits that, in practical terms, the contested
— breach of the right of members of temporary staff to take          decision subjects it, as an undertaking not occupying a
     part in internal competitions and infringement of the           dominant position in the market, to an obligation to
     first paragraph of Article 21 and the first paragraph of        contract. A refusal to supply would in itself be pertinent
     Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the            from the standpoint of cartel law, in accordance with
     criterion requiring candidates to have completed a              Article 86 , only if the undertaking refusing to supply
     period of uninterrupted service may result in the               dominated the market. The lengthy interpretation by the
     elimination of candidates possessing the same or better         Commission of the sanctions provided for by Article 85
     qualifications than those of other candidates admitted to       ignores the essential element of ' agreement', namely
    the competition,                                                 consensus ad idem, and goes beyond the limits laid down by
                                                                     constitutional and basic law, as well as contravening the
— a manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that        principle of the rule of law and the principle of certainty. In
     it appears that the applicant was in fact in the service of     view of the fact that this was clearly a 'test case ' for the
    the Commission from 16 March 1992 to 31 March                    Commission, in which the Commission was breaking
     1996 .                                                          new legal ground, the imposition of the fine was
                                                                     disproportionate .
                                                                     The applicant further relies, in the alternative, on the fact
                                                                     that the unilateral cutbacks in supplies are justified to a
                                                                     substantial extent by the patent protection existing in the
                                                                     United Kingdom in respect of ' Andalat-Retard'.
Action brought on 21 March 1996 by Bayer AG against the
          Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-41/96 )
                          ( 96/C 145/25 )
                                                                     Action brought on 27 March 1996 by Société de
               (Language of the case: German)                        Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles against the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                             ( Case T-45/96 )
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 1996                                          ( 96/C 145/26 )
by Bayer AG, Leverkusen ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,                              (Language of the case: trench)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand-Rue .                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1996
                                                                     by Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles,
— annul the defendant's decision ( Case IV/34.279/F3 ) of            established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
     10 January 1 996 , which was notified to the applicant on       Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
     22 January 1996 ,                                               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue
                                                                     Béatrix de Bourbon .
— in the alternative, set aside the fine of ECU 3 million
     imposed on the applicant,                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
— in the further alternative, reduce the fine,                       — declare that the Commission has failed to act,


title: Case C-152/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against Finanzamt Gersheim

text:
C 158/8                    EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               5.7.2003
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,              of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, the French Republic has
      comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May                         failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
      the health of workers and the general public against the dangers        2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      arising from ionising radiation, the French Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                              hof by order of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the
                                                                              case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
                                                                                Finanzamt Gersheim
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (Case C-152/03)
                            (Fourth Chamber)                                                               (2003/C 158/13)
                             of 15 May 2003
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in Case C-484/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                        ties v French Republic ( 1)                           (Federal Tax Court) of 13 November 2002, received at the
                                                                              Court Registry on 2 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                  the case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
97/43/Euratom — Health protection of individuals against                      Finanzamt Gersheim on the following questions:
the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical
                                                                              1.    Is it contrary to Article 43 and Article 56 of the
            exposure — Incomplete implementation)
                                                                                Treaty establishing the European Community if, when
                                                                                determining his taxable income, a natural person who
                             (2003/C 158/12)                                        has full tax liability in Germany and who receives
                                                                                employment income there is not allowed to deduct in
                       (Language of the case: French)                               Germany losses incurred in another Member State from
                                                                                leasing and letting property?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        2.    If that question is answered in the negative: is it contrary
                      in the European Court Reports)                                to Article 43 and Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the
                                                                                European Community if such losses cannot be taken into
                                                                                account for the purposes of the negative tax progression
                                                                                clause (negativer Progressionsvorbehalt)?
In Case C-484/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to
the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/43/
Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals                   Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical              the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom (OJ 1997
L 180, p. 22), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),                                              (Case C-167/03)
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;                                                      (2003/C 158/14)
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:
                                                                              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      comply with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June                  represented by M. Van Beek and M. Konstandinidi, of its Legal
      1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers            Service.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 1998 in Case C-26/98: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/26/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 378/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                    (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 October 1998
                     of 22 October 1998
                                                                           in Case C-228/97 P: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v.
       in Case C-26/98: Commission of the European                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
                  Communities v. Ireland (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Cover under the joint sickness insurance
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð               scheme Ð Divorced spouse of a former official Ð Appeal
Directive 94/26/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the                            manifestly inadmissible and unfounded)
                       prescribed period)                                                     (98/C 378/12)
                         (98/C 378/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: English)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-26/98: Commission of the European                          In Case C-228/97 P: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, divorced
Communities (Agents: Hans Christian Stùvlbñk and                     spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
Michael Schotter) v. Ireland (Agent: Michael A. Buckley)             residing in Kehlen (Luxembourg), represented by Dieter
Ð Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,           Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel, with an address for
or by failing to notify, within the prescribed period the            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker, Braun
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary            & Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-TheÂreÁse Ð Appeal against
to comply with Commission Directive 94/26/EC of 15 June              the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 79/            European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-66/95
196/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member               [1997] ECR II-637, seeking the annulment of that
States concerning electrical equipment for use in                    judgment, the other party to the proceedings being:
potentially explosive atmospheres employing certain types            Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
of protection (OJ L 157, 24.6.1994, p. 33), Ireland has              Currall, and Bertrand Wägenbaur), the Court (Fourth
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive Ð the          Chamber) composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,                Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and K. M.
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H.               Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; S.                  Registrar has made an order on 8 October 1998, the
Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a            operative part of which is as follows:
judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed          2. The applicant is ordererd to pay the costs of the
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                      proceedings.
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission
     Directive 94/26/EC of 15 June 1994 adapting to
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
     technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC on
     the approximation of the laws of the Member States
     concerning electrical equipment for use in potentially
     explosive atmospheres employing certain types of
     protection, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under that directive;
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                     Grande Instance de Lille by judgment of that court of
                                                                     7 August 1998 in the case of Philippe Anssens v. Directeur
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                  des Services Fiscaux du Nord
                                                                                (Case C-325/98)
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.                                                                        (98/C 378/13)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the First Civil


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello (Sezione Prima Civile), Venice, by order of that court of 9 May 1996, in the case of Conserchimica SRL v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-261/96)

text:
14. 9 . 96         I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 269/ 19
and C. Impens and the Council of the European Union was             — Absence of the conditions necessary in law for liability to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      arise and, in the alternative, breach of the principle of
Communities on 23 July 1996 by the Council of the                        proportionality.
European Union , represented by Jean-Paul Jacqué, Diego
Canga Fano and Therese Blanchet, with an address for                (') Case C-412/92 P Parliament v . Meskens [ 1994 ] ECR I ,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of B. Eynard, European              p . 3757 .
Investment Bank .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— annul the judgment given by the Court of First Instance           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello
                                                                    ( Sezione Prima Civile ), Venice, by order of that court of
    on 26 June 1996 in Case T-91 /95 de Nil and Impens v.
                                                                    9 May 1996, in the case of Conserchimica SRL v.
    Council of the European Union,                                             Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
— give judgment upholding the claims put forward by the                                       Case C-261 /96 )
    Council at first instance, that is to say :                                                ( 96/C 269/39 )
    — dismiss the application and the claims for                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        compensation therein ,                                      European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello
                                                                    ( Sezione Prima Civile ) ( Court of Appeal, first Civil
    — order the applicants before the Court of First                Division ), Venice, of 9 May 1 996, which was received at the
        Instance to pay the costs of those proceedings,             Court Registry on 24 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                    the case of Conserchimica SRL v. Amministrazione delle
— make an appropriate order as regards the costs before             Finanze dello Stato on the following question :
    the Court of Justice.
                                                                    Does Article 2 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1 697/79 ( 1 )
                                                                    of 24 July 1 979 , which prescribes a three-year period for the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 recovery of duties not collected , also apply to situations
                                                                    where the conditions were satisfied before 1 July 1980, the
— Infringement of Article 176 of the EC Treaty : the                date on which that Regulation entered into force pursuant
    approach adopted by the Court of First Instance,                to Article 11 thereof ?
    consisting, on the one hand, in noting that the
    Community judicature may not determine the measures             (M OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
    required to comply with a judgment and, on the other
    hand , in specifying after the event the measures that it
    considers the Council could have provided for, is
    contradictory in law . That approach affectively negates
    the case-law on the institutions ' discretion to determine
    the measures necessary to comply with a judgment.               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
                                                                    Aachen — 13th Chamber — by order of that court of
                                                                    24 July 1996 in the case of Sema Sürül v. Bundesanstalt für
— Infringement of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations : the
    Council organized a new competition, B/228a , in                                         Arbeit, Nürnberg
    accordance with the solution suggested in the judgment                                   ( Case C-262/96 )
    in Parliament v. Meskens ('), and the Court of First                                        ( 96/C 269/40 )
    Instance commits an error of law when it regards
    Competition B/228a as re-opening Competition                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    B/228 .
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Thirteenth
                                                                     Chamber of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court ) Aachen of
— Breach of the principle of equal treatment: reclassifying          24 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    the successful candidates in Competition B/228a with             26 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sema
    effect from the same date as those in Competition B/228 ,        Sürül v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit Nürnberg ( Federal
    as required by the contested judgment, would amount to           Employment Office, Nuremberg ) on the following
    treating different situations in an identical manner .           questions :
— Infringement       of   Article  45     (2)   of   the  Staff      1 . Does a Turkish national living in Germany who comes
    Regulations .                                                         within the personal scope of Article 2 of Decision
                                                                          No 3/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Association
— Infringement of Article 48 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure :            Council set up pursuant to the Agreement establishing
    the Court of First Instance committed an error of law as              an Association between the European Economic
    regards the subsequent promotions of the successful                   Community and Turkey (' Decision No 3/80 '), and who
    candidates in Competiton B/228 , in that it based its                 possesses merely an Aufenthaltsbewilligung, have the
    judgment on the factual position on the date when the                 right, deriving directly from Article 3 in conjunction
    judgment was given instead of the date when the                       with Article 4 ( 1 ) ( h ) of Decision No 3/80 , to German
    application was made .                                                child benefit, in such a way that that right is conditional