title: Case C-433/02: Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
25.1.2003               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 19/23
     seq EC), the right of establishment (Article 43 et seq. EC)                      nationals on the basis of periods of study completed
     and freedom to provide services (Article 49 et seq. EC), as                      with foreign institutions operating in Italy even
     interpreted by the Court of Justice. Of particular relevance                     though they are approved and accredited by the
     in that regard are national rules and/or administrative                          competent public authorities in the Member State to
     practices which:                                                                 which they belong;
                                                                                —    require production of an attestation from the diplo-
     —      impede the Italian establishment of a limited com-                        matic representation — Italian consulate in the
            pany whose principal business is in the United                            foreign country in which the degree was awarded —
            Kingdom from carrying on in the host state the                            proving actual residence in that country by the
            business of organising and administering courses of                       person concerned for the whole period of the
            study for preparation for university examinations,                        university studies;
            for which the company is duly authorised and
            accredited by the United Kingdom public auth-
            orities?                                                             —    limit recognition of degrees ‘solely’ to pursuit of a
                                                                                profession already pursued in the State of origin,
                                                                                thus precluding recognition for the purposes of
                                                                                access to a regulated profession even though not
     —      discriminate as between nationals pursuing the same                       previously exercised.
            activities;
                                                                          3.     What is the meaning and scope of the expression ‘harmful
                                                                                interruption (...) of vocational training’ in Council
     —      prohibit and/or seriously impede the Italian estab-
                                                                                Decision 63/266/EEC (3) and does it cover the creation at
            lishment of that undertaking in obtaining, in another
                                                                                national level by the public authorities of a permanent
            Member State and for valuable consideration, the
                                                                                system of information which evidences that degrees
            services conducive to the pursuit of the abovemen-
                                                                                awarded by a university, even though legally recognised
            tioned activity;
                                                                                in the United Kingdom, cannot be recognised under
                                                                                national legislation if they have been obtained on the
                                                                                basis of periods of study completed in Italy.
     —      discourage students from enrolling in those courses
            of study;
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002, p. 2.
     —      impede the professional training of enrolled students         (3 ) OJ 63 of 20.4.1963, p. 1338 (English special edition...: Series-I
            and the obtaining of an award capable of conferring                (63-64) p. 25).
            on its holder advantages either in securing access to
            a professional activity or in exercising it with greater
            reward in other Member States as well.
2.   On an interpretation — herein requested — of Article 2
     of Council Directive 89/48/EC ( 1), does that directive
     confer rights which may be relied on also before acqui-
     sition of the degree mentioned in Article 1 of the directive
     itself. If the reply to that question is affirmative, does the       Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Com-
     directive itself, regard also being had to the judgment in           mission of the European Communities against the
     Case C-145/99 Commission v Italian Republic [2001] (2),                                     Kingdom of Belgium
     permit rules or administrative practices in the national
     legal order which:
                                                                                (Case C-433/02)
     —      make recognition of university degrees obtained on
            completion of training of at least three years’                                         (2003/C 19/40)
            duration subject to the discretion of the public
            authorities;
     —      grant recognition in Italy of degrees awarded by              An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
            universities recognised in the United Kingdom only            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
            if completed after regular attendance for the whole           29 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
            course of studies at those universities, to the               Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
            exclusion therefore of degrees awarded to Italian             an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/24                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                         during the years 1999 and 2000, Ireland has failed to
the Court should:                                                              fulfil its obligations under Article 5 (1) of Directive 95/
                                                                               21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control of
—     Declare that, by failing to apply the provisions on the                  shipping (1);
      public lending right set out in Directive 92/100/EEC of
      19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and            2)     order Ireland to pay the costs.
      on certain rights related to copyright in the field of
      intellectual property, (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of
      that Directive;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                        Article 5(1) of Directive 95/21/EC, in its wording at the
                                                                        material time, imposes an obligation on each Member State to
                                                                        inspect at least 25 % of the number of individual foreign ships
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         which enter its ports in a given year. It is clear from the facts
                                                                        that Ireland failed to fulfil this obligation for the years
                                                                        1999 and 2000 because in those years it inspected 7,5 % and
Although Belgium has provided for a right to remuneration
                                                                        14,6 % respectively of the number of ships that entered its
for authors in those cases in which the latter cannot prohibit
                                                                        ports.
lending, none of the implementing measures provided for by
Article 63 of the Law of 30 June 1994 on copyright
and related rights has been adopted and the amount of
remuneration has therefore never been fixed.                            (1 ) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
                                                                             enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
                                                                             sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States,
The Belgian authorities err in invoking difficulties in dis-                 of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention
                                                                             and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
tinguishing the categories of establishments which may be                    (OJ L 157, 07.07.1995, p. 1).
exempted under Article 5(3) of the Directive. If the circum-
stances prevailing in the Member State in question do not
make it possible to draw a valid distinction between categories
of establishments, the solution must lie in imposing the
obligation to pay the remuneration in question on all of the
establishments concerned.
( 1) OJ 1992 L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
                                                                        Action brought on 4 December 2002 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-439/02)
Action brought on 2 December 2002 by the Commission                                                 (2003/C 19/42)
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                          (Case C-436/02)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                           (2003/C 19/41)                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 December
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, acting as Agents.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 2 December 2002 by               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Knut Simonsson, acting as agent, with an address for service
                                                                        1.     Declare that, by failing to carry out a number of annual
in Luxembourg.                                                                 inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of the number
                                                                               of individual vessels entering its ports in 1999 and 2000,
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995
1)    declare that, by failing to carry out an annual total                    concerning port State control (1);
      number of inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of
      the number of individual ships which entered its ports            2.     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 March 1995 in Case T-497/93: Anne Hogan v. Court of Justice of the European Communites (Officials - Deduction from remuneration - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 119/11
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               declaration that the national proceedings giving rise to the
                                                                       attachment order were unlawful — the Court of First
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                       Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                      of 28 March 1995                                 President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcίa-Valdecasas, Judges;
in Case T-12/94 : Frédéric Daffix v. Commission of the                 B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 March
                   European Communities (*)                            1 995 , in which it:
       (Officiais — Removal from post — Statement of
                               reasons)                                1 , rejects the requests made by the applicant in the
                                                                             documents dated 10 and 20 December 1994;
                           ( 95/C 119/26 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       2 , dismisses the application;
In Case T- 1 2/94: Frédéric Daffix, a former official of the           3 , orders each party to bear its own costs, including those
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                          relating to the application for interim measures.
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in              (M OJ No C 263 , 29 . 9 . 1993 .
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
 Glesener, against Commission of the European
 Communities (Agents: D. Gouloussis and B. Cambier) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decision
of 18 March 1993 removing the applicant from his post and,
in so far as is necessary, annulment of the implied decision                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court of First                                     of 23 February 1995
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Biancarelli,
President of the Chamber, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy,              in Case T-488/93 : Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on                     GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
28 March 1995 , in which it:                                                               (Declining ofjurisdiction)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/28 )
 1 , annuls the Commission decision of 18 March 1993
      removing the applicant from his post;                                            (Language of the case: German)
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                      In Case T-488/93 : Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
                                                                      GmbH, having its registered office in Bremen ( Germany ),
 (M OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                      represented by Gerhard Wiedemann and Jan-Peter Hix, of
                                                                      the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8—10, Rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                      against Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
                                                                      B. Smulders and J. Grunwald ) — application for annulment
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of Commission Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993
                                                                      concerning aid awarded by the German Government to
                      of 29 March 1995
                                                                      Hibeg and by Hibeg via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan
in Case T-497/93: Anne Hogan v. Court of Justice of the               AG, facilitating the sale of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH
                   European Communites 0 )                            from Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG ( 2 ) — the
(Officials — Deduction from remuneration — Protocol                   Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, Extended
on the Privileges and Immunities of the European                      Composition), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                          Communities)                                R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. Garcίa-Valdecasas and C. W.
                                                                      Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                          ( 95/C 119/27)
                                                                      23 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      1 , the Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in
In Case T-497/93 : Anne Hogan, official at the European                     Case T-488/93, (Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                          GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities,
Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrare Bar, with an                       in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the
address for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux v.                     applications for annulment;
Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agents:
L. Maggioni, N. Lierow and P. Ferrari ) — application for
                                                                     2,     the costs are reserved.
the annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice
concerning a sum deducted from the applicant's
remuneration pursuant to an attachement order, for the                t 1 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .
reimbursement of that sum, for compensation in respect of             (2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 43 .
the material and non-material damage which the applicant
claims to have suffered and, in the alternative, for a


title: Case T-10/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Formula One Licensing v OHIM — Global Sports Media (FI-LIVE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark F1-LIVE — Earlier Community figurative marks, and national and international word marks, F1 and F1 Formula 1 — Opposition rejected by the Board of Appeal — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Formula One Licensing v OHIM — Global Sports Media (FI-LIVE)
   (Case T-10/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark F1-LIVE - Earlier Community figurative marks, and national and international word marks, F1 and F1 Formula 1 - Opposition rejected by the Board of Appeal - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 103/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Formula One Licensing BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Klingberg and K. Sandberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Global Sports Media Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda) (represented by: T. de Haan and J.-J. Evrard, and subsequently by T. de Haan, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2008 (Case R 7/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Racing-Live SAS and Formula One Licensing BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Formula One Licensing BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-350/02: Action brought on 1 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
21.12.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 323/25
Action brought on 1 October 2002 by the Commission                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein hallin-
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                    to-oikeus by order of that Court of 10 October 2002 in
                            Netherlands                                                      the case of Marie Lindfors
                                                                                (Case C-365/02)
                          (Case C-350/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/36)
                          (2002/C 323/35)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Korkein hallinto-
                                                                          oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 October 2002,
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   received at the Court Registry on 14 October 2002, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Marie Lindfors on the
on 1 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          following question:
Communities, represented by M. Shotter and W. Wils, acting
as Agents.
                                                                          Is Article 1 of Directive 83/183/EEC on tax exemptions
                                                                          applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the
                                                                          personal property of individuals (1) to be interpreted as mean-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ing that the autovero (car tax) charged under the Autoverolaki
                                                                          on a vehicle imported into Finland from another Member State
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations         in connection with a transfer of residence is a consumption
      and administrative provisions required to transpose                 tax within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the directive, or is
      Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 97/66/EC ( 1) of the European         such autovero a specific duty or tax connected with the use of
      Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997                   such property within the country within the meaning of
      concerning the processing of personal data and the                  Article 1(2)?
      protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector
      into national law, or in any event by failing to forward            (1 ) OJ L 105 of 23 April 1983, p. 64.
      those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of the
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations;
2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 28 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-385/02)
Incomplete transposition of Article 6 of Directive 97/66/EC:                                        (2002/C 323/37)
the Netherlands legislation, in particular Article 11.5 of
the Telecommunicatiewet (Telecommunications Law), requires
only that the traffic data referred to in the secondary law be
erased or made anonymous. This provision will be in accord-               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
ance with the Directive only if the relevant secondary legis-             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 October
lation contains an exhaustive citation of all traffic data apart          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
from those referred to in Article 6(2) and (3) of the Directive.          represented by Klaus Wiedner and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
The Commission has not as yet received any notification of                Agents.
provisions of secondary legislation with such an exhaustive
citation.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Article 9(a) of the Directive (tracing of malicious or nuisance                 obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of
calls) has not been transposed, as the Netherlands authorities                  14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures
have acknowledged.                                                              for the award of public works contracts, in particular
                                                                                Article 7(3) thereof, when the Magistrato per il Po di
                                                                                Parma, a department of the Ministry of Public Works
( 1) OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1.                                                        (now the Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport),
                                                                                awarded the contracts for work on the construction and
                                                                                completion of an expansion basin to hold spate waters of
                                                                                the River Parma in the area of Marano in the Parma


title: Case C-556/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-556/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 205/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Opinion 1/08: Request for an opinion submitted by the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 300(6) EC

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/6

         Request for an opinion submitted by the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 300(6) EC
   (Opinion 1/08)
   (2008/C 183/10)
   Language of the case: all the official languages
   Applicant:
   Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. White, M. Huttunen and L. Prete, Agents)
   Questions submitted to the Court:

               1.

               Does the conclusion of the agreements with the affected WTO [World Trade Organisation] members, pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS [General Agreement on Trade in Services], as described in this request for an Opinion, fall within the sphere of exclusive competence of the Community or within the sphere of shared competence of the Community and the Member States?

               2.

               Do Article 133(1) and (5), in conjunction with Article 300(2) of the EC Treaty, constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act concluding, on behalf of the European Community, or of the Community and its Member States, the aforementioned agreements?


title: Case C-407/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Discriminatory dismissal — Article 18 — Compensation or reparation for the loss and damage actually sustained — Deterrent effect — Article 25 — Penalties — Punitive damages)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA
   (Case C-407/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Discriminatory dismissal - Article 18 - Compensation or reparation for the loss and damage actually sustained - Deterrent effect - Article 25 - Penalties - Punitive damages))
   (2016/C 068/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho

      Defendant: Securitas Seguridad España SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 18 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for the loss and damage sustained as a result of discrimination on grounds of sex to be the subject of genuine and effective compensation or reparation in a way which is dissuasive and proportionate, that article requires Member States which choose the financial form of compensation to introduce in their national legal systems, in accordance with detailed arrangements which they determine, measures providing for payment to the person injured of compensation which covers in full the loss and damage sustained.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case C-51/09 P: Appeal brought on 3 February 2009 by Barbara Becker against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December2008 in Case T-212/07 Harman International Industries, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/20

         Appeal brought on 3 February 2009 by Barbara Becker against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December2008 in Case T-212/07 Harman International Industries, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-51/09 P)
   (2009/C 82/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Barbara Becker (represented by: P. Baronikians, A. Hofstetter, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Harman International Industries, Inc., Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should order:

               —

               annulment of § 1 of the Court of First Instance's decision of 2 December 2008 (Case T-212/07), by which the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 7 March 2007 (Case R-502/2006-1) was annulled;

               —

               annulment of § 3 of the Court of First Instance's decision of 2 December 2008;

               —

               order that the defendant pays the appellant's costs incurred in the entire proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in finding that there was similarity between the trademark ‘Barbara Becker’ applied for by the appellant and the defendant's mark ‘BECKER’, and therefore misapplied article 8(1)(b) CTMR in concluding that there was likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-59/16 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-9/14 De Nicola v EIB

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/37

         Appeal brought on 13 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-9/14 De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-59/16 P)
   (2016/C 111/44)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 58 to 63 of the judgment itself;

               —

               Consequently, annul the guidelines established for the year 2012 or declare that they are no longer applicable; order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-9/14).
   The grounds of appeal and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 March 2003 in Case C-40/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 12(1) — Revocation of trade mark owner's rights — Concept of genuine use of a trade mark — Maintenance of goods already sold and sales of replacement parts and accessories)

text:
10.5.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 112/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 11 March 2003
                          of 20 March 2003
                                                                             in Case C-40/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-291/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Ansul BV v Ajax
the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris): LTJ Diffusion                                             Brandbeveiliging BV ( 1)
                  SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA (1)
                                                                             (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 12(1) —
                                                                             Revocation of trade mark owner’s rights — Concept of
(Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/                         genuine use of a trade mark — Maintenance of goods already
104/EEC — Article 5(1)(a) — Notion of sign which is                                sold and sales of replacement parts and accessories)
identical with the trade mark — Use of the distinctive
element of the mark to the exclusion of other elements —
Use of all the elements making up the trade mark but with                                                 (2003/C 112/05)
                  the addition of other elements)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                           (2003/C 112/04)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-40/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                    in the European Court Reports)                           by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Ansul BV and Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV, on the
                                                                             interpretation of Article 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/
                                                                             104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
                                                                             the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
In Case C-291/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   p. 1), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
EC by the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) for a                President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    C. W. A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann,
court between LTJ Diffusion SA and Sadas Vertbaudet SA, on                   A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and
the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive             S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws                       General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,                  trar, has given a judgment on 11 March 2003, in which it has
p. 1), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                     ruled:
President, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann, P. Jann, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colner-
ic, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,             1.     Article 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,                            21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 March 2003, in                        States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning
which it has ruled:                                                                 that there is ‘genuine use’ of a trade mark where the mark is
                                                                                used in accordance with its essential function, which is to
                                                                                guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for
                                                                                which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for
Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-                  those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use
ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to                   for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the
trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a sign is identical                 mark. When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine,
with the trade mark where it reproduces, without any modification or                regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant
addition, all the elements constituting the trade mark or where,                    to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark
viewed as a whole, it contains differences so insignificant that they               is real, particularly whether such use is viewed as warranted in
may go unnoticed by an average consumer.                                            the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in
                                                                                the market for the goods or services protected by the mark, the
                                                                                nature of the goods or services at issue, the characteristics of the
( 1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.
                                                                                market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark. The fact
                                                                                that a mark that is not used for goods newly available on the
                                                                                market but for goods that were sold in the past does not mean
                                                                                that its use is not genuine, if the proprietor makes actual use of
                                                                                the same mark for component parts that are integral to the
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/4                    EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.5.2003
      make-up or structure of such goods, or for goods or services               2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      directly connected with the goods previously sold and intended
      to meet the needs of customers of those goods.
                                                                                (1 ) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
2.    It is for the national court to draw the consequences for the
      resolution of the dispute before it of the interpretation of the
      Community law concept of ‘genuine use’ of the trade mark given
      in the reply to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling.
( 1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 11 March 2003
                                                                                in Case C-186/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Alexander Dory v
                                                                                Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Inapplicability of Community law to compulsory military
                            of 20 March 2003                                     service — Equal treatment of men and women — Article 2
                                                                                of Directive 76/207/EEC — Compulsory military service in
in Case C-135/01: Commission of the European Communi-                               Germany limited to men only — Directive not applicable)
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/07)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
98/56/EC — Marketing of propagating material of orna-
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
mental plants — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
             period — Difficulties of interpretation)
                                                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                             (2003/C 112/06)                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                In Case C-186/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a
                      in the European Court Reports)                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                                court between Alexander Dory and Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany, on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council
                                                                                Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
In Case C-135/01, Commission of the European Communities                         tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
(Agent: G. Braun) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                         as regards access to employment, vocational training and
W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön): Application for a                        promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40),
declaration that, by failing within the prescribed period to                     and, more generally, on the compatibility with Community
adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures                      law of the limitation of compulsory military service in
necessary in order to transpose into national law Council                        Germany to men, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the marketing of                           Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet,
propagating material of ornamental plants (OJ 1998 L 226,                        R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
p. 16), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                 bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, the Court                    F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of                     Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
the Chamber, C. Gulmann and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,                       11 March 2003, in which it has ruled:
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 20 March 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                Community law does not preclude compulsory military service being
1.    Declares that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt            reserved to men.
      all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
      to transpose into national law Council Directive 98/56/EC of
                                                                                (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
      20 July 1998 on the marketing of propagating material of
      ornamental plants, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;


title: Case T-120/04: Action brought on 22 March 2004 by Peróxidos Orgánicos, S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/47

         Action brought on 22 March 2004 by Peróxidos Orgánicos, S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-120/04)
   (2004/C 118/102)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 March 2004 by Peróxidos Orgánicos, S.A., Barcelona, (Spain), represented by A. Creus and B. Uriarte, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E-2/37.585 Organic Peroxides) insofar as they affect the applicant,

               —

               in the alternative, cancel the fine imposed on the applicant,

               —

               order the Commission the pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision the Commission found that the applicant, among others, infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty by participating in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the sector of organic peroxides from 1 January 1971 to 31 December 1999. On these grounds, the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 500.000 on the applicant.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the proceedings against it were time barred by virtue of Regulation 2988/1974 (1), since its participation in the infraction ceased in January 1997 and thus a period longer than five years had elapsed before the first actions taken by the Commission in the case in question.

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November 1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to transport and competition Official Journal L 319 , 29/11/1974 P. 1 - 3


title: Case T-758/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF Toruń v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/42

         Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF Toruń v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case T-758/15)
   (2016/C 068/53)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: EDF Toruń SA (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: K. Sienkiewicz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision No SME(2015)4950 of 3 November 2015 issued by the European Chemicals Agency, and VAT invoice No 10054011 of 3 November 2015, relating to the charging of an administrative fee for the incorrect indication of the undertaking’s size when making a notification to the REACH register;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, relating to a lack of binding force of the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC) and to the need to apply national provisions in this regard;

               2.

               Second plea, relating to infringement of the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008, (1) given the fact that the agency is not entitled to impose financial penalties on entities making a notification to the REACH register;

               3.

               Third plea, relating to infringement of the principle of proportionality through the charging of an administrative fee whose amount is excessively high in relation to the work required to determine the correct value for the undertaking;

               4.

               Fourth plea, relating to misuse of powers through the charging of a fee on the basis of Decision 14/2015 of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency when that decision does not have binding force;

               5.

               Fifth plea, relating to infringement of the principle of equality by setting the amount of administrative fees on the basis of the size of the entity which is to be charged the fee, when there are no arguments at all supporting the correctness of such a solution.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).


title: Case C-14/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Gena Ivanova Cholakova v Osmo Rayonno Upravlienie pri Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti (Request for a preliminary ruling — Articles 21(1) TFEU, 67 TFEU and 72 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National rules permitting a person to be detained in order to establish his identity — Lack of connection with European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/54

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Gena Ivanova Cholakova v Osmo Rayonno Upravlienie pri Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti
   (Case C-14/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Articles 21(1) TFEU, 67 TFEU and 72 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - National rules permitting a person to be detained in order to establish his identity - Lack of connection with European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 225/99
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gena Ivanova Cholakova

      Defendant: Osmo Rayonno Upravlienie pri Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 21(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 67 TFEU and 72 TFEU and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 45(1) of the Charter — Citizenship of the European Union — Free movement of persons — Derogations — National rules permitting a person to be detained by the police in order to establish his identity when that person refuses or is unable to prove his identity — Detention of a maximum of 24 hours — Check not justified on grounds of public order, prevention of criminal activity or domestic security — Discretionary power of the police — Lack of obligation to assess the need to establish the person’s identity

      Operative part of the order

   It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) by decision of 17 December 2012 (Case C-14/13).

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-305/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main): Christian Schulin v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Plant varieties — System of protection — Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 — Use by farmers of the product of the harvest — Obligation to provide information to the holder of the Community right)

text:
C 135/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
8.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                             States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the
                                                                              European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. However, the requirements
9.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                             deriving from the protection of the free movement of goods enshrined,
                                                                              inter alia, in Articles 28 EC and 30 EC may mean that this rule of
                                                                              evidence needs to be qualified. Accordingly, where a third party
( 1) OJ C 246 of 28.08.1999.                                                  succeeds in establishing that there is a real risk of partitioning of
                                                                              national markets if he himself bears that burden of proof, particularly
                                                                              where the trade mark proprietor markets his products in the European
                                                                              Economic Area using an exclusive distribution system, it is for the
                                                                              proprietor of the trade mark to establish that the products were
                                                                              initially placed on the market outside the European Economic Area
                                                                              by him or with his consent. If such evidence is adduced, it is for the
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       third party to prove the consent of the trade mark proprietor to
                                                                              subsequent marketing of the products in the European Economic
                                                                              Area.
                           of 8 April 2003
in Case C-244/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (1 ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
the Bundesgerichtshof): Van Doren + Q.GmbH v Lifestyle
sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Michael
                                Orth (1)
(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(1) —
Exhaustion of the right conferred by the trade mark —
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Evidence — Place where the goods are first placed on the
market by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent —
Consent of the trade mark proprietor to placing on the                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
                         market in the EEA)
                                                                                of 10 April 2003
                           (2003/C 135/02)
                                                                              in Case C-305/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                    (Language of the case: German)                            from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main): Christian
                                                                              Schulin v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft
                                                                                mbH (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Plant varieties — System of protection — Article 14(3) of
                                                                              Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 8 of Regulation
                                                                              (EC) No 1768/95 — Use by farmers of the product of the
In Case C-244/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177                    harvest — Obligation to provide information to the holder
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesgerichtshof                                      of the Community right)
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Van Doren + Q.GmbH and Lifestyle                                               (2003/C 135/03)
sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Michael Orth,
on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and                                             (Language of the case: German)
of Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), as amended               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of                                                 in the European Court Reports)
2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann                         In Case C-305/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  EC by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) for
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate                  a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               court between Christian Schulin and Saatgut-Treuhandverwal-
has given a judgment on 8 April 2003, in which it has ruled:                  tungsgesellschaft mbH, on the interpretation of the sixth
                                                                              indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/
A rule of evidence according to which exhaustion of the trade mark            94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ
right constitutes a plea in defence for a third party against whom the        1994 L 227, p. 1), and Article 8 of Commission Regulation
trade mark proprietor brings an action, so that the existence of the          (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on
conditions for such exhaustion must, as a rule, be proved by the third        the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of
party who relies on it, is consistent with Community law and, in              Regulation No 2100/94 (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14), the Court
particular, with Articles 5 and 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/          (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member                 Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, S. von Bahr
 ---pagebreak--- 7.6.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 135/3
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                   the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it                the Landesarbeitsgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary
has ruled:                                                                   ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                             Giulia Pugliese and Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio
                                                                             Division, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the abovemen-
The provisions of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council               tioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304,
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, of 27 July 1994, on Community
                                                                             p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission             the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules
                                                                             United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ
on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of
                                                                             1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Regulation No 2100/94 cannot be construed as meaning that the                Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
holder of a Community plant variety right can require a farmer to
                                                                             Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention
provide the information specified in those provisions where there is no      of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
indication that the farmer has used or will use, for propagating             and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court,
purposes in the field, on his own holding, the product of the harvest
                                                                             composed of: D.A.O. Edward acting as President of the Fifth
obtained by planting, on his own holding, propagating material of a          Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and
variety other than a hybrid or synthetic variety which is covered by
                                                                             A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
that right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species listed       Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94.                                   on 10 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                             1.    Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                                Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                                                                                Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 Octo-
                                                                                ber 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
                                                                                Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                                Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of
                                                                                26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                          the Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as meaning that,
                                                                                in a dispute between an employee and a first employer, the place
                         of 10 April 2003                                          where the employee performs his obligations to a second
                                                                                employer can be regarded as the place where he habitually
                                                                                carries out his work when the first employer, with respect to
in Case C-437/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          whom the employee’s contractual obligations are suspended,
the Landesarbeitsgericht München): Giulia Pugliese v                               has, at the time of the conclusion of the second contract of
      Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio Division (1)                             employment, an interest in the performance of the service by the
                                                                                employee to the second employer in a place decided on by the
                                                                                latter. The existence of such an interest must be determined on
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Court for the place
                                                                                a comprehensive basis, taking into consideration all the
of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
                                                                                circumstances of the case.
employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
out his work — First contract fixing the place of performance
of the work in one Contracting State — Second contract
concluded with reference to the first contract and under
which the employee carries out his work in another Con-                      2.    Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as
tracting State — First contract suspended during the per-                          meaning that, in matters relating to contracts of employment,
                      formance of the second)                                      the place where the employee carries out his work is the only
                                                                                place of performance of an obligation which can be taken into
                                                                                consideration in order to determine which court has jurisdiction.
                          (2003/C 135/04)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-437/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of


title: Case C-233/00: Action brought on 13 June 2000 against the French Republic by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             through expiry of the period within which a decision must be
                                                                        taken should be regarded as constituting a very serious
                                                                        infringement of the above directives.
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to transpose in full          ( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
      Article 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) of 15 July          ( 2) OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23.
      1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive                    ( 3) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
      91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of            ( 4) OJ 1984 L 188, p. 20.
      Council Directive 76/464/EEC (2) of 4 May 1976 on                 ( 5) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
      pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dischar-
      ged into the aquatic environment of the Community,
      Articles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 of Council Directive
      80/68/EEC (3) of 17 December 1979 on the protection
      of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
      dangerous substances, Articles 3, 4, 9 and 10 of Council
      Directive 84/360/EEC (4) of 28 June 1984 on the comba-            Action brought on 13 June 2000 against the French
      ting of air pollution from industrial plants, and Articles 2      Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
      and 8 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (5) of 27 June                                              ties
      1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
      and private projects on the environment, the Kingdom of
      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Artic-                                   (Case C-233/00)
      le 249 EC and the above directives;
                                                                                (2000/C 233/38)
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs of the              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      proceedings.                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 June
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Götz zur Hausen and Jean-François Pasquier,
                                                                        Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
                                                                        Member of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Kirchberg.
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should:
The Commission takes the view that the so-called ‘implied
authorisation’ provided for in the local legislation of Flanders        —     declare that by not correctly transposing Article 2(a) and
and Wallonia runs counter to the provisions of the directives                 Article 3(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC
listed in the forms of order sought. The mechanism of this                    of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information
‘implied authorisation’ operates as follows: if the competent                 on the environment (1) the French Republic has failed to
authority at first instance does not take a decision on an                    fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the
application for authorisation, the requested authorisation will               third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty;
then be deemed to have been refused (the principle of implied
refusal). However, precisely the opposite applies at higher             —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
instance. If the appellate authority fails, within the specified
period, to take a decision, authorisation will be deemed to
have been granted (the principle of implied authorisation).             Pleas in law and main arguments
This rule applies even in the case of express or implied refusal
of authorisation at first instance.                                     —     Incomplete transposition of the combined provisions of
                                                                              Article 2(a) and Article 3(1) of Directive 90/313/EEC
                                                                              (scope of the duty to communicate): The concept of
                                                                              ‘administrative document’ used by (French) Law No 78-
‘Implied authorisation’ resulting from the mere fact that the                 753 is narrower than that of ‘information relating to the
time-limit for taking a decision has passed cannot, however,                  environment’ contained in the directive, with the result
be treated as constituting express administrative action. The                 that certain documents held by the administration and
directives cited above require, not a merely formal licensing                 containing environmental information likely to be of
obligation, but a substantive decision. In addition, the authori-             interest to citizens might not be communicable on the
sation applied for may be granted only after a prior investiga-               basis of Law No 78-753.
tion has been conducted; the mechanism of ‘implied authorisa-
tion’ provides no guarantee that authorisation will be granted          —     Incorrect transposition of the first paragraph of Artic-
only once such an investigation has been completed. Finally,                  le 3(2) (exceptions to the principle that environmental
the possibility that, if the competent authority at first instance            information is to be communicated): The final indent of
concludes that the requested authorisation has to be refused,                 Article 6 of Law No 78-753 allows a request for access
that decision may be overturned at appellate level merely                     to information to be refused where consultation or the
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/21
      communication of a document would ‘be generally                    Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
      prejudicial to secrets protected by law’. That concept is          Office) of 1 June 2000, which was received at the Court
      not amongst the exhaustive list of exceptions set out in           Registry on 13 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
      Article 3(2) of Directive 90/313/EEC. It is not the same           of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against CSC
      thing as, and is no less extensive in the area it covers           Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum (Europe) Ltd), on
      than, the concept in the directive of ‘confidentiality of          the following questions:
      data’. Even though national authorities are required to
      interpret provisions of domestic law in such a way as to           How is the exemption provided by article 13B(d)(5) (1) in
      ensure compliance with Community law, the wording of               respect of ‘transactions in securities’ to be interpreted? In
      Law No 78-753 is not sufficient objectively to exclude             particular,
      the possibility of a refusal that is not justified under the
      directive, and, contrary to the obligations which follow           (1) does the term ‘transaction in securities’ apply only to a
      from Community law, the legal appearance creates a legal                 transaction in which the parties’ legal rights or obligations
      uncertainty which cannot be allowed.                                     in respect of the security are altered?
—     Failure to transpose the final paragraph of Article 3(2)           (2) does the term ‘transactions, including negotiation, in
      (partial communication of information): A doctrine set                   securities’ apply to a service of providing information to
      out by the (French) ‘Commission on Access to Admi-                       potential investors and receiving and processing applica-
      nistrative Documents’ is no substitute for the correct                   tions from investors for the issue of a security (but not
      transposition of a directive conferring rights on indivi-                including preparing and dispatching the document of
      duals.                                                                   title to the security), where that service is provided to a
                                                                               person who has legal rights or obligations under the
                                                                               security by a person who does not have any legal right or
—     Failure to transpose Article 3(3) (possibility of refusing a
                                                                               obligation under the security?
      manifestly unreasonable request, or one requiring the
      communication of unfinished or internal documents):
      Whilst it is true that Article 3(3) of the directive states        (1) Of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
      merely a possibility that is open to Member States and                 the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      not an obligation, it appears that that possibility of                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      rejecting requests is in fact used by the French administra-           basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
      tion when faced with certain requests for information,
      and that individuals are not in a position to discover with
      the required clarity what the limits of their right of access
      to information are, since the assessment of the exceptions
      is carried out only on a case by case basis by the
      administrative courts.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 3(4) (Possibility of no
                                                                                Luxembourg
      reasons being given for implied rejection decisions).
                                                                                (Case C-236/00)
( 1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
                                                                                (2000/C 233/40)
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice on 13 June 2000 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Kirchberg.
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 1 June 2000, in                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                      the Court should:
against CSC Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum
                           (Europe) Ltd)                                 —     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                               prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-
                                                                               nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with:
                         (Case C-235/00)
                                                                               —      Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998
                         (2000/C 233/39)                                              laying down certain measures for implementing
                                                                                Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the condi-
                                                                                tions and arrangements for approving and registe-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                ring certain establishments and intermediaries ope-
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                                 rating in the animal feed sector (1), and


title: Case T-81/00: Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 176/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.6.2000
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                  This action is directed against Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 174/2000 of 24 January 2000 repealing Council Regu-
                         (Case T-81/00)                                   lation (EEC) No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a definitive
                                                                          anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable
                        (2000/C 176/41)                                   pocket flint lighters originating in Japan (1).
                                                                          The applicants represent more than 75 % of Community
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       production of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters.
                                                                          They are suffering the consequences of failure to adopt the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 anti-dumping measures concerned.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associa-
                                                                          In support of their action the applicants allege:
ção Comercial de Aveiro, a non-profit-making organisation,
whose registered office is at Aveiro (Portugal), represented by
João Amaral e Almeida and Bernardo Diniz de Ayala, of the                — manifest error in the appreciation of the facts, having
Lisbon Bar.                                                                    regard to the total lack of correspondence between the
                                                                               results of the preparatory inquiry conducted by the
                                                                               Commission and the content of the provisions enacted by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the Council. It is pointed out in this connection that,
                                                                               according to the Commission’s investigations, the average
a) Declare admissible the present action and, accordingly,                     price of the products imported from Japan amounted to a
     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                      reduction of 22,9 % in relation to the average weighted
     Communities approving the claim for payment of the                        price of the Community producers, despite the upward
     balance relating to file 891038 P3 of 30 November 1999,                   effect which the anti-dumping duty of 35,7 % imposed by
     notified to the applicant on 27 January 2000 by way of                    Regulation No 3433/91 exerted on the prices charged;
     decision No 00723 of the DAFSE — Departamento para
     os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu;                                 — breach of Article 253 of the Treaty, inasmuch as there is
                                                                               plainly a conflict between the facts and the contents of the
b) Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      contested regulation. In that regard, they claim that the
                                                                               regulation does not reveal a single fact which might lend
                                                                               support to the repeal of the anti-dumping measures. On
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               the contrary, all the recitals in the preamble to the
                                                                               regulation emphasise the persistence of a state of grave
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those                   danger for the Community industry and the gradual loss
in Case T-80/00.                                                               of profitability recorded in that sector.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 22 of 27 January 2000, p. 16.
Action brought on 15 April 2000 by Bic S.A., Flamagas
S.A. and Swedish Match S.A. against Council of the
                        European Union
                                                                          Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Adolfo Kind against
                         (Case T-82/00)                                          the Commission of the European Communities
                        (2000/C 176/42)
                                                                                (Case T-91/00)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2000/C 176/43)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
Communities on 15 April 2000 by Bic S.A., Flamagas S.A. and
Swedish Match S.A., represented by Alessio Vianello.                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Adolfo Kind,
                                                                          represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 174/2000 of 24 January                 an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
     2000 and order the Council to pay the costs.                         Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.


title: Case C-301/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier ministre

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier ministre
   (Case C-301/15)
   (2015/C 294/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marc Soulier, Sara Doke

      Defendants: Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, Premier ministre

      Question referred

   Do the provisions, referred to above, of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 (1), preclude legislation, such as that analysed in paragraph 1 of this decision, that gives approved collecting societies the right to authorise the reproduction and the representation in digital form of ‘out-of-print books’, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that it lays down?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-231/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels — Price-fixing — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates — Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA — Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-231/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Price-fixing - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates - Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA - Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned))
   (2015/C 294/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders InnoLux Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.