title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma by order of that court of 6 October 1997 in the case of Kazemi Nava against Confcommercio (Case C-11/98)

text:
C 113/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.4.98
    the exercise of its discretion, an application by a              d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) of
    Turkish national to remain in its territory, is that             19 November 1997, which was received at the Court
    competent authority obliged to take into account the             Registry on 16 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    existence of the Agreement together with the                     the case of SA ReÂgie Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA
    additional Protocol?                                             Maxicar and Orazio Formento on the following questions:
5. If the answer to question No 4 is yes', is the
    competent authority in the Member State required to
    have regard to the principle of proportionality in               1. Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be
    exercising its discretion?                                           interpreted as precluding the holder of industrial or
                                                                         intellectual design rights in a Member State from
6. If the answer to question No 5 is yes', what factors                 asserting the corresponding exclusive right so as to
    are to be taken into account by the competent                        prevent third parties from manufacturing, selling and
    national authority in determining whether deportation                exporting to another Member State component parts
    is proportionate?                                                    which, taken as a whole, make up the bodywork of a
                                                                         car already on the market, that is to say, component
                                                                         parts intended to be sold as spare parts for that car?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma            2. Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be applied so as to
by order of that court of 6 October 1997 in the case of                  prohibit the abuse of the dominant position held by
            Kazemi Nava against Confcommercio                            each car manufacturer in the market for spare parts
                                                                         for cars of its manufacture, which consists in seeking
                        (Case C-11/98)                                   to eliminate any competition from independent
                         (98/C 113/18)                                   manufacturers of spare parts through the exercise of
                                                                         its industrial and intellectual design rights and the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   attendant judicial penalties?
European Communities by order of the Pretura di Roma
(Rome Magistrate's Court) of 6 October 1997, which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 January 1998, for a             3. Is, therefore, a judgment handed down by a court of a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kazemi Nava against                    Member State to be considered contrary to public
Confcommercio on the following question.                                 policy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Brussels
                                                                         Convention if it recognises industrial or intellectual
Must the term employer' contained in Article 1 of
                                                                         design rights over such component parts which, taken
Directive 75/129/EEC (1) of 17 February 1975 be
                                                                         as a whole, make up the bodywork of a car and
understood as including non-profit-making organisations,
                                                                         affords protection to the holder of such purported
which act on behalf of their own members who are,
                                                                         exclusive rights by preventing third parties trading in
moreover, required periodically to pay a subscription, and
                                                                         another Member State from manufacturing, selling,
which represent and protect the interests of undertakings
                                                                         transporting, importing or exporting in that Member
and politicial, social, economic and trade union
                                                                         State such component parts which, taken as a whole,
organisations and serve to further the economic and social
                                                                         make up the bodywork of a car already on the
interests of undertakings: in other words, those
                                                                         market, or, in any event, by sanctioning such conduct?
organisations, such as Confcommercio, which may also be
defined as associations of trade unions in the light of the
objects set forth in their memoranda of association. If the
reply is in the affirmative, is the national court required to
disapply the concept of undertaking' as mentioned in Law
No 223/1991?
(1) OJ L 48, 22.7.1975, p. 29.
                                                                     Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-45/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/20)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) by order of
that court of 19 November 1997 in the case of SA ReÂgie
Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA Maxicar and Orazio               An action against the Council of the European Union was
                           Formento                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                        (Case C-38/98)                               Communities on 24 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, abogado
                         (98/C 113/19)                               del Estado, of the State Legal Service responsible for
                                                                     representing the Spanish Government before the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Justice, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities by an order of the Corte                        Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 boulevard E. Servais.


title: Case T-108/08: Action brought on 27 February 2008 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA (GOOD LIFE)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/24

         Action brought on 27 February 2008 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA (GOOD LIFE)
   (Case T-108/08)
   (2008/C 116/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE (Glyfada, Greece)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM in Case R 298/2007-2;

               —

               order the OHIM or the intervener to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GOOD LIFE’ for goods in class 3 — application No 1 709 641

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE

      Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word marks ‘GOOD LIFE’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and remittal of the case to the Opposition Division for further consideration

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 43, 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, among others as the Board of Appeal has taken into account goods for which the trade mark applied for does not claim protection and on which the opposition was not based; as the Board of Appeal should not have taken into consideration the evidence presented by Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE for use of its trade marks; and as the Board of Appeal has considered evidence that the applicant could not evaluate.


title: Case T-488/09: Action brought on 4 December 2009 — Jager & Polacek v OHIM- RT Mediasolutions (REDTUBE)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/42

         Action brought on 4 December 2009 — Jager & Polacek v OHIM- RT Mediasolutions (REDTUBE)
   (Case T-488/09)
   2010/C 37/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: RT Mediasolutions s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) No R 442/2009-4 of 29 September 2009;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: RT Mediasolutions s.r.o

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘REDTUBE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41 (Application No 6 096 309)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Jager & Polacek GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: a non-registered trade mark ‘Redtube’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The notice of opposition is deemed not to have been entered

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 (1) in conjunction with Article 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2), since the applicant was not given an opportunity to submit a reply;

               —

               Infringement of Article 80(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the decision on the admissibility of the opposition had not been legally annulled.

               —

               Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009, and more particularly of the principle of legitimate expectations, in conjunction with Article 41(3) of the same Regulation, Rule 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (3) und Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 (4), since the applicant entertained reasonable expectations that the delay in lodging the opposition fee was remedied by the paymentwithin the prescribed time limit of the additional payment.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96 of 5 February 1996 laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of OHIM (OJ 1996 L 28, p. 11),

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 33)

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78 of 24.3.2009, p.1)

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 33)


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 March 1998 in Case C-122/95: Federal Republic of Germany, supported by Kingdom of Belgium v. Council of the European Union, supported by Kingdom of Spain, French Republic and Commission of the European Communities (Framework Agreement on bananas - GATT 1994 - Final Act)

text:
16.5.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 151/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   bananas with the Republic of Costa Rica, the Republic of
                                                                     Colombia, the Republic of Nicaragua and the Republic of
                     of 10 March 1998
                                                                     Venezuela Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
in Case C-122/95: Federal Republic of Germany,                       Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet, R.
supported by Kingdom of Belgium v. Council of the                    Schintgen (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
European Union, supported by Kingdom of Spain,                       Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
French Republic and Commission of the European                       J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; M. B.
                      Communities (1)                                Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Framework Agreement on bananas Ð GATT 1994 Ð                        10 March 1998, in which it:
                         Final Act)
                       (98/C 151/01)
                                                                     1. annuls the first indent of Article 1(1) of Council
                                                                          Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning
                                                                          the conclusion on behalf of the Community, as regards
             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          matters within its competence, of the agreements
                                                                          reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral
                                                                          negotiations (1986Ð94), to the extent that the
                                                                          Council thereby approved the conclusion of the
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          Framework Agreement on bananas between the
        published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          European Community and the Republic of Costa Rica,
                                                                          the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Nicaragua
                                                                          and the Republic of Venezuela, in so far as that
In Case C-122/95: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                    Framework Agreement exempts Category B operators
E. Röder and B. Kloke), supported by Kingdom of                           from the export-licence system for which it provides;
Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder) v. Council of the European
Union (Agents: R. Bandilla, A. Brautigam and J.-P. Hix),
supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agents: A. Navarro
                                                                     2. for the rest, dismisses the application;
GonzaÂlez and R. Silva de Lapuerta), French Republic
(Agents: C. de Salins and G. Mignot) and Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and
U. Wölker) Ð application for annulment of the first                  3. orders the parties, including the interveners, to bear
indent of Article 1(1) of Council Decision 94/800/EC of                   their own costs.
22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of
the European Community, as regards matters within its
competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay                 (1) OJ C 174, 8.7.1995.
Round multilateral negotiations (1986Ð94) (OJ L 336,
23.12.1994, p. 1), to the extent that the Council thereby
approved the conclusion of the Framework Agreement on


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma by order of that court of 2 October 1996 in the case of 1. CO.NA.TA. - Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop a r.l. and 2. Agrindustria Srl against AIMA - Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato Agricolo (Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96)

text:
 No C 354/22              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
 — Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty: the                       Security Tribunal, Bouches du Rhone] of 1 March 1996 ,
       infringement of Article 10 ( 6 ) of Directive 93/37/EEC            received at the Court Registry on 15 October 1996, for a
       amounts at the same time to an infringement of                     preliminary ruling in the case ofJ. Farias v. Caisse Regionale
       Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The same is true of the               d'Assurance Maladie du Sud-Est [South-East Regional
       preference for Lower Austrian materials and/or                     Health Insurance Fund] on the following question:
       undertakings contained in point 2.10 of the AAVB
       where the tenders involved are of equal value to other             Can a Portuguese national residing in Portugal who reached
       tenders .                                                          the age of 60 on 17 May 1992, and did not receive , in
                                                                          addition to his invalidity pension, supplementary allowance
— Infringement of Directive 88/665/EEC ( directive on                     from the Fonds National de Solidarite [National Solidarity
       review procedures ): contrary to Articles 1 and 2 ( 1 ) ( h )      Fund] solely because he was resident outside France, claim
       of the Directive, point 2.5 of the AAVB excludes ab initio         under Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1247/92 ( ] ) that his
       and unconditionally all claims which might arise on the            entitlement was acquired before 1 June 1992 , the date of
       part of contractors in connection with an award                    entry into force of that regulation ?
       procedure .
                                                                          ( 1 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 1 .
 ( ] ) OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 54.
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma by              Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno,
order of that court of 2 October 1996 in the case of 1 .                 by order of that court of 17 August 1996 in the case of
CO.NA.TA. — Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop a                     Dilexport S.r.l. v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
r.l. and 2 . Agrindustria Sri against AIMA — Azienda di                                                    Stato
           Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato Agricolo                                             Case C-343/96
                 ( Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96 )                                                      ( 96/C 354/44
                               ( 96/C 354/42 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Pretura
European Communities by orders of the Pretura di Roma                    Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno
[Magistrates Court, Rome] of 2 October 1996 , received at                 [District Magistrate 's Court, Bolzano, Vipiteno Division] of
the Court Registry on 8 October 1996 , for a preliminary                  17 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
ruling in the case of 1 . CO.NA.TA. — Consorzio Nazionale                on 30 September 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Tabacchi Soc . Coop a r.l . and 2 . Agrindustria Sri against             Dilexport Sri . v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
AIMA — Aziende di Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato                   on the following questions :
Agricolo [State Intervention Agency] on the question of the
validity of Article 5 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( ! ) of           1 . Must Community law be interpreted as precluding the
17 December 1993 in connection with the principle of the                        adoption by a Member State of a provision such as
non-retroactivity of Community legislation since it cannot                      Article 29 of Italian Law No 428 of 29 December 1990
be justified either by the previous regulations or by an                        which makes the repayment of charges levied in breach
overriding public interest that warrants the sacrifice of                       of Community law subject to time-limits for
rights acquired on the basis of previous legislation, and                       prescription or lapse and to conditions as to proof which
entails an unforeseeable modification to the detriment of                       are different from and more restrictive than those laid
subjective rights, thereby undermining the legitimate                           down in the general rules of civil law ? In particular, with
expectations of the addressees of' the measure in                               regard to the principle that the procedural conditions for
question .                                                                      exercising the right to reimbursement established by
                                                                                national law 'may not be less favourable than those
(!) OJ No L 317, 18 . 12 . 1993 , p . 30 .                                      relating to similar actions of a domestic nature', what is
                                                                                to be understood by the expression ' similar actions of a
                                                                                domestic nature '?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal des                   2 . Do the fundamental principles of the Community order
Affaires de Sécurité Sociale des Bouches du Rhône by                            preclude the introduction by a Member State — in a
judgment of that Tribunal of 1 March 1996 in the case of J.                     limited manner and with reference only to a specific
Farias against Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du                          sphere consisting of a homogenous category of fiscal
                                   Sud-Est                                      levies made up in particular of charges linked to the
                                                                                Community order — of special derogating provisions to
                            ( Case C-339/96 )                                   restrict and limit the right to recovery of sums unduly
                              ( 96/C 354/43 )                                   paid, thus derogating from the general conditions for
                                                                                recovery of sums unduly paid laid down in Article 2033
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of the Civil Code ? In particular, may the principle of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal des                            non-discrimination be understood in a restrictive sense,
Affaires de Securite Sociale des Bouches du Rhone [Social                       and may it thus be considered that a provision of a


title: Case T-87/09: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2009 — Andersen v Commission (State aid — Measures in favour of Danske Statsbaner — Public service obligations — Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/54

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2009 — Andersen v Commission
   (Case T-87/09) (1)

   (State aid - Measures in favour of Danske Statsbaner - Public service obligations - Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 24/96
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, J. Rivas de Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Martenczuk and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 4776 final of 10 September 2008 to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid C 41/2008 (ex NN 35/2008), implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark in favour of Danske Statsbaner.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Jørgen Andersen is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case T-178/12: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Khwanda v Council

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/25

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Khwanda v Council
   (Case T-178/12) (1)

   2014/C 329/36
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of 14 August 1996, in the case of Mrs B. S. Levez against T. H. Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (Case C-326/96)

text:
No C 354/20            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23 . 11 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio,                      liable in the final analysis to repay the reduction and
Exinos ( Greece ) by order of that court of 24 July 1995 in the              premium ?
case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE
             against Athanasias Simou and others                     (')   OJ No L 110 , 29 . 4 . 1988 , p . 35 .
                        ( Case C-324/96 )                            (2)   OJ, English Special Edition , 1970 ( I ), p. 206 .
                                                                     ( 5)  OJ No L 129 , 11 . 5 . 1989 , p . 16 .
                          ( 96/C 354/38 )                            (4 )  OJ No L 129 , 11 . 5 . 1989 , p . 17 .
                                                                     (5)   OJ No L 187, 19 . 7 . 1990 , p . 23 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               (6)   OJ No L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1988 , p . 34 .
European Communities by order of the Irinodikio [Small
Claims Court], Exinos of 24 July 1995 , received at the Court
Registry on 3 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE
v. Athanasias Simou and others on the following                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal
questions :                                                          Administrativo ( Pleno da Secção do Contencioso
                                                                     Tributário ) by judgment of that court of 10 July 1996 in the
1 . Is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1 1 14/88 ( 1 ) amending        case of Fabrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 727/70 ( 2 ) valid,                                 Subdirector-Geral das Alfandegas
    inasmuch as it provides that, in the event of the                                           ( Case C-325 /96 )
    maximum guaranteed quantity for the production of
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/39 )
    leaf tobacco in the whole of the Community being
    exceeded , the intervention prices and premiums are to
    be reduced, generally and without distinction, and               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    without there being any relation between the price               European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
    reduction and whether the producer was guilty of an              Tribunal Administrativo ( Pleno da Secção do Contencioso
    overrun in production or not ?                                   Tributário ) [ Supreme Administrative Court ( Division for
                                                                     Fiscal Matters sitting in plenary session )] of 10 July 1996 ,
                                                                     which was received at the Court Registry on 4 October
2 . Are Regulations ( EEC ) No 1251 /89 (■') and 1252/89 ( 4 )       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fabrica de
    valid as regards the laying down of maximum                      Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against Subdirector-Geral
    guaranteed quantities for the Tsebelia tobacco variety of        das Alfandegas ( Deputy Director General of Customs ) on
    the 1989 harvest and does the application thereof                the following questions :
    infringe the general principles of the prohibition of the
    retroactive application of Community legislation , of the
    protection of the legitimate expectations of producers           1 . Should Article 28 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
    and purchasers and processors of tobacco, and the                       No 3677/86 ( 1 ) of 24 November 1986 be interpreted as
    principle of legal certainty ?                                          meaning that the six-month time-limit prescribed
                                                                            therein cannot be extended ?
3 . If the reply to the preceding question is affirmative, then
                                                                     2 . Or should that provision instead by interpreted as
    in view of the finding by the Commission of actual
                                                                            meaning that the general rule for granting extensions
    overproduction and an infringement by 44,1 % of the
                                                                            provided for in Article 27 of that Regulation and in the
    maximum guaranteed quantities of the Tsebelia and
                                                                             second subparagraph of Article 14 ( 2 ) of Council
    Mavra varieties of the 1989 harvest, and the imposition                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 1999/85 ( 2 ) of 16 July 1985 is to
    for that reason of a reduction in premium and                            be applied to the said time-limit ?
    intervention price in the abovementioned amount of
    15 % , is Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2046/90 ( 5 )
                                                                     (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of 24 November 1986
    valid and may we apply, as is contended for by the
                                                                           laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation
    applicant, clause 8 of the cultivation contracts entered               ( EEC ) No 1999/85 on inward processing relief arrangements
    into      under      Commission       Regulation     ( EEC )           ( OJ No L 351 , 12 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 ).
    No 4263/8 8 ( 6 ) ? If the prices or the premium are             ( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 20 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .
    adjusted pursuant to Article 4 ( 5 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
    No 727/70, is the contract price to be adjusted in line
    with the change in the price and premiums ?
4 . Are the factors which in 1991 led the Court of Justice in
    Case C-368/89 to annul the regulation laying down                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
    maximum guaranteed quantities for the 1988 harvest of            Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of
    the Bright variety likewise present in this case in view of      14 August 1996 , in the case of Mrs B. S. Levez against T. H.
    the fact that the Commission made the same mistake in                                Jennings ( Harlow Pools ) Ltd
    delaying the determination of maximum guaranteed                                            ( Case C-326/96 )
    quantities for the 1989 harvest ?                                                             ( 96/C 354/40 )
5 . Finally, in the event that the Court of Justice should rule      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    that the regulations in question are valid, then who is          European Communities by an order of the Employment
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/21
Appeal Tribunal, London, of 14 August 1996, which was                Action brought on 7 October 1996 by the Commission
received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1996 , for a             of the European Communities against the Austrian
preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs B. S. Levez against                                         Republic
T. H. Jennings ( Harlow Pools ) Ltd, on the following                                       ( Case C-328/96 )
questions :
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/41 )
                                                                     An action against the Austrian Republic was brought before
1 . Is it compatible with Community law to apply, to a               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     claim for equal pay for equal work without                      7 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
     discrimination on grounds of sex, a rule of national law        Communities , represented by Claudia Schmidt and Hendrik
     which limits a claimant's entitlement to arrears of             van Lier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents , with an
     remuneration or damages for breach of the principle of          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez
     equal pay to a period of two years prior to the date on         de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
     which the proceedings were instituted, in circumstances         Kirchberg .
     where :
                                                                     The Commission claims that the Court should :
     ( a ) that rule of national law applies to all claims for
           equal pay without sex discrimination , but to no          — declare that the Austrian Republic has failed to fulfil its
           other claims;                                                 obligations under Council Directives 93/37/EEC ( ] ) and
                                                                         89/665/EEC ( 2 ) and under Article 30 of the EC Treaty in
                                                                         connection with the new building for the Lower
                                                                         Austrian St Polten Landhaus- und Kulturbezirk in
     ( b ) rules which are in this respect more favourable to            awarding the contracts, which were awarded in the
           claimants are applied to other claims in the field of         period before 6 February 1996 but, on 7 March 1996 ,
           employment law, including claims in respect of                had not yet been performed or could reasonably have
           breach of the contract of employment, racial                  been unwound ;
           discrimination in pay, unlawful deduction from
           wages, and sex discrimination in matters other than
                                                                     — order the Austrian Republic to pay the costs .
           pay ;
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     ( c ) the national court has no discretion to extend the
           two-year period in any circumstance , even where a        The Commission points out that, from the time of its
           claimant was delayed in bringing her claim because        accession to the EEA Agreement and, a forteriori, from the
           her employer deliberately misrepresented to her the       date of its accession to the European Union, the Austrian
           level of remuneration received by men performing          Republic had to comply with European legislation including
           like work to her own ?                                    the directives on the award of public contracts . It states as
                                                                     follows with regard to the individual infringements :
                                                                     — Infringement of Council Directive 93/37/EEC ( Directive
2 . In particular, having regard to the consistent case-law of           on coordination of public works contracts ): the
     the Court that rights conferred by the direct effect of             Niederosterreichische Landeshauptstadt Planungs
     Community law are to be exercised under the conditions              gesellschaft mbH ('Noplan ') relied at the material time
     determined by national law, provided inter alia that                on its procurement measures 'Allgemeine Angebots- und
     those conditions are no less favourable than those                  Vertragsbestimmungen' [ General Tendering and
     relating to similar domestic actions, how is the                    Contract Conditions , ' AAVB '] in the version of
     expression ' similar domestic actions' to be interpreted in         1 January 1995 and therefore did not comply either with
     the case of a claim for equal pay in circumstance where             the advertising rules ( Article 1 1 of the Directive ) or with
     the conditions laid down by national legislation                    the obligation to inform unsuccessful tenderers
      implementing the principle of equal pay differ from                ( Article 8 of the Directive ). In at least one award
      those laid down by other national legislation in the field         procedure , Noplan disregarded the provisions of the
      of employment law, including legislation relating to               directive by setting out in the tender documents a
      breach of the contract of employment, racial                       particular specification favouring 'Unix products',
      discrimination, unlawful deductions from wages , and               which is contrary to Article 10 ( 6 ) of the Directive .
      sex discrimination in matters other than pay ?                     Lastly, the contracts in question were awarded without
                                                                         ( a ) complying with the criteria for qualitative selection
                                                                         set out in the Directive ( e.g. the grounds for exclusion set
                                                                         forth in Article 24 ) when considering whether a given
                                                                         undertaking qualified to take part in the tender and ( b )
                                                                         applying the criteria listed in Article 30 for the award of
                                                                         contracts .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Case C-361/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln): Société Générale des Grandes Sources d'Eaux Minérales Françaises v Bundesamt für Finanzen (Value added tax - Interpretation of Article 3(a) of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC - Obligation of tax-payers not established in the country concerned to Annex the original invoices or import documents to applications for a refund of the tax - Possibility of annexing a duplicate where the original has been lost for reasons beyond the control of the tax-payer)

text:
C 258/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
2. Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71, as inserted          P. LeÂger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
    by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June              a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
    1991, does not preclude the legislation of a Member
    State from making the right of a person who has
    ceased all occupational activity in its territory to
    remain subject to its legislation dependent on his             On a proper construction of Article 10a of Council
    continued residence there.                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                   application of social security schemes to employed
                                                                   persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                   families moving within the Community, as amended and
3. Regulation No 1408/71 does not preclude the                     updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
    legislation of a Member State from providing that a            2 June 1983, as subsequently amended by Council
    person who has ceased all occupational activity in its         Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992, read in
    territory loses the right to continue to receive family        conjunction with Annex IIa, attendance allowance falls
    benefits paid under that legislation on the ground that        within the scope of that provision and is therefore a
    he has transferred his residence to another Member             special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of
    State where he lives with the members of his family.           Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result that the
                                                                   position of a person, such as the applicant in the main
                                                                   proceedings, who satisfied the conditions for the award of
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.                                         that benefit after 1 June 1992 when Regulation (EEC)
                                                                   No 1247/92 entered into force, is governed exclusively by
                                                                   the system of coordination established by the said
                                                                   Article 10a.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Third Chamber)
                        of 11 June 1998
in Case C-297/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Social Security Commissioner): Vera A. Partridge v
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                   Adjudication Officer (1)
                                                                                of 11 June 1998
(Social security Ð Special non-contributory benefits Ð
Articles 4(2a), 5 and 10a of and Annex VI to Regulation            in Case C-361/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Attendance allowance Ð Non-                     the Finanzgericht Köln): SocieÂteÂ GeÂneÂrale des Grandes
                         exportability)                            Sources d'Eaux MineÂrales FrancËaises v Bundesamt für
                                                                                Finanzen (1)
                         (98/C 258/10)
                                                                   (Value added tax Ð Interpretation of Article 3(a) of the
                                                                   Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC Ð Obligation of
                                                                   tax-payers not established in the country concerned to
               (Language of the case: English)                     Annex the original invoices or import documents to
                                                                   applications for a refund of the tax Ð Possibility of
                                                                   annexing a duplicate where the original has been lost for
                                                                           reasons beyond the control of the tax-payer)
In Case C-297/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Social Security Commissioner                                       (98/C 258/11)
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before him between Vera A. Partridge
and the Adjudication Officer Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
2 June 1983 (OJ L 230 of 22.8.1983, p. 6), as                                published in the European Court Reports)
subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ L 136 of 19.5.1992,
p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho               In Case C-361/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
de Almeida (Rapporteur), and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;             of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 258/7
Court, Cologne) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the proceedings pending before that court between SocieÂteÂ
GeÂneÂrale des Grandes Sources d'Eaux MineÂrales                                           (Third Chamber)
FrancËaises and Bundesamt für Finanzen Ð on the
interpretation of Article 3(a) of the Eighth Council                                        of 11 June 1998
Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
                                                                     in Case C-41/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                     the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp): Belgian State v Foodic BV
to turnover tax Ð Arrangements for the refund of value
                                                                     (a company in liquidation) and Peter Nyssen,
added tax to persons not established in the territory of the
                                                                     Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf Verhaert NV, and A. Maas
country (OJ L 331 of 27.12.1979, p. 11) Ð the Court
                                                                                & Co. NV and Jozef Picavet (1)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                     (Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 Ð
(Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                     Specific import levies on certain milk products Ð
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
                                                                     Description of Kashkaval cheese Ð Completion of IMA 1
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                     certificate by the competent authority not in compliance
judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                     with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 1767/82)
                                                                                (98/C 258/12)
1. Article 3(a) of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
     EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the
     laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
     Ð Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to
     taxable persons not established in the territory of the
     country is to be interpreted as not precluding Member
     States from providing in their national law that a               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     taxable person who is not established in that Member                      published in the European Court Reports)
     State may prove his entitlement to a refund by
     submitting a duplicate invoice or import document
     where the original has been lost for reasons beyond his
     control, provided that the transaction which led to the
                                                                     In Case C-41/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
     application for a refund occurred and there is no risk
     of further applications for a refund.                           of the EC Treaty from the Hof van Beroep (Court of
                                                                     Appeal), Antwerp, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between Belgian
                                                                     State and Foodic BV (a company in liquidation) and Peter
                                                                     Nyssen, Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf Verhaert NV, and
                                                                     A. Maas & Co. NV and Jozef Picavet Ð on the
                                                                     interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1767/
                                                                     82 of 1 July 1982 laying down detailed rules for applying
2. Where a taxable person established in a Member State              specific import levies on certain milk products (OJ L 196
     may prove his entitlement to a refund of value added            of 5.7.1982, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber),
     tax by submitting a duplicate or photocopy of the               composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
     invoice if the original which he received has been lost         Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet,
     for reasons beyond his control, the principle of non-           Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
     discrimination set out in Article 6 of the EC Treaty            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     and referred to in the fifth recital in the preamble to         judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
     the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC requires that the
     same possibility be extended to taxable persons not
     established in that Member State if the transaction
     which led to the application for a refund occurred and
     there is no risk of further applications for a refund.          1. The Kashkaval cheese referred to in Commission
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 of 1 July 1982 laying
                                                                         down detailed rules for applying specific import levies
                                                                         on certain milk products is Kashkaval cheese made
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                                 exclusively from sheep's milk.
                                                                     2. An IMA 1 certificate completed in a manner contrary
                                                                         to the instructions set out in the Annexes to
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 does not satisfy the
                                                                         requirements of that regulation; products imported


title: Case C-438/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of 6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.

text:
21.2.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 47/13
     (b) does that apply notwithstanding an opinion as                   4.   Does Community law also require the payment of
           mentioned above on the basis that where the                        damages for non-material loss?
           plaintiff proves or even where the plaintiff substan-
           tiates that in the filling of the post the applicant          5.   As a matter of Community law, is the national court
           preferred to the plaintiff was less well-qualified than            required of its own motion to order the payment of
           the plaintiff the rule of evidence under this directive            punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?
           comes into effect
     (c)   and on the basis that proof to the contrary may only          6.   Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
           be regarded as conclusive if it leads to the factual               for damages for breach of Articles 81 and 82 EC under
           finding that the candidate appointed was better                    Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with
           suited or that in actual fact a non-gender-related                 Community law?
           reason was the decisive factor in the appointment of
           a less well-suited candidate?                                 7.   As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the
                                                                              limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
                                                                              does time begin to run from the day on which the
(1) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.                                                      infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC was committed or
(2) OJ 1997 L 14, p. 6.                                                       the day on which that infringement came to an end?
                                                                         8.   Does Community law require national courts to disapply
                                                                              national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
                                                                              to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of
6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against
                      Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.
                         (Case C-438/03)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                                                                         guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of
                          (2004/C 47/21)                                 6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against
                                                                                Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-439/03)
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del guidice di
pace de Bitonto of 6 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 16 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                                      (2004/C 47/22)
case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni. on the
following questions:
1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Ufficio del guidice di
     in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
                                                                         pace de Bitonto of 6 October 2003, received at the Court
     Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) Lazio (Rome)
                                                                         Registry on 16 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
     of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
                                                                         case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni. on the
     full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
                                                                         following questions:
     particular of Articles 81 and 82 EC?
2.   Does an infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC imply an              1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
     obligation on the part of the person committing it to                    Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
     compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate                      in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
     that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?                 Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) Lazio (Rome)
                                                                              of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
3.   In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the                   full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
     restitution of sums charged in breach of Community                       particular of Articles 81 and 82 EC?
     rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of
     Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way              2.   Does an infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC imply an
     of punitive damages against those persons responsible                    obligation on the part of the person committing it to
     for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant                      compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate
     position?                                                                that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?


title: Case T-75/06: Action brought on  27 February 2006  — Bayer CropScience a.o. v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/31

         Action brought on 27 February 2006 — Bayer CropScience a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-75/06)
   (2006/C 96/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Bayer CropScience AG (Monheim am Rhein, Germany), Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Teko AE (Athens, Greece) and Aragonesas Agro SA (Madrid, Spain) [represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the annulment of Commission Decision 2005/864/EC (1), of 2 December 2005, concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this substance; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Directive 91/414 (2) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (known as the ‘plant protection products directive’ or ‘PPPD’) provides that Member States shall not authorise a product unless it is inscribed in Annex I of the Directive. The applicants, who are producers of endosulfan, request the annulment of the contested Decision, which refused to include endosulfan in that Annex.
   In support of their application they first invoke a number of alleged procedural irregularities, namely: that the assessment of the contested Decision is based on criteria other than those specified in Directive 91/414, is incomplete and makes only selective use of the data submitted by the applicants; that new guidelines and criteria established by the Commission were applied retroactively after the applicant's notification and submission of data; and that the Commission refused to advise and consult with the applicants in relation to changing evaluation criteria and policy.
   The applicants further allege that from a substantive law viewpoint the contested Decision violates Article 95(3) EC and Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414. They consider that the Commission failed to comply with its duty, under these provisions, to assess active substances and include them in Annex I in light of current scientific and technical knowledge and subject only to the requirements listed in article 5.
   They further invoke the violation of a number of general principles of Community law, namely: the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, the duty to perform a diligent and impartial assessment, the right of due process (right of defence and right to a fair hearing), the principle of excellence and independence of scientific advice, the principle of equal treatment, the principle that more general provisions must give way to a lex specialis and finally the principle of estoppel.

      (1)  OJ L 317, 3/12/2005 p. 25

      (2)  OJ L 230, 19/08/1991 p.1


title: Case T-183/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/29

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)
   (Case T-183/16)
   (2016/C 222/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER DRAMA’ — Application for registration No 11 566 544

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2500/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-279/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Thomas Kiehl v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Thomas Kiehl v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-279/17)
   (2017/C 239/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomas Kiehl

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-283/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/18

         Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-283/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2014/C 15/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 in Case F-131/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-400/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MAXPLAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)
   (Case T-400/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MAXPLAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 129/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maximum Play, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 2273/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MAXPLAY as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Maximum Play, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case C-642/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 December 2011 — EOOD Stroy Trans v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — gr. Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia po Prihodite

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 December 2011 — EOOD Stroy Trans v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — gr. Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia po Prihodite
   (Case C-642/11)
   2012/C 80/12
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen Sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EOOD Stroy Trans

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — gr. Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia po Prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that VAT entered by a person on an invoice shall be payable regardless of whether there are grounds for entering it on the invoice (lack of a supply or of services or a payment), and as meaning that the authorities who review the application of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on VAT) are not authorised to carry out adjustments to the tax entered on the invoice by a person in the light of a national provision pursuant to which an invoice may only be adjusted by its issuer?

               2.

               Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and of legitimate expectations infringed by a practice in the administration and in the courts, under which one party (the person named in the invoice as the buyer) is refused the right to deduct input VAT by means of a tax assessment notice, whilst in relation to the other party (the issuer of the invoice) no adjustment of the VAT entered on the invoice is carried out, again by means of a tax assessment notice, specifically in the following cases:

                           —

                           the issuer of the invoice did not submit any documents for the purposes of the tax assessment conducted in relation to him;

                           —

                           the issuer of the invoice submitted documents during the tax assessment procedure but his suppliers did not submit any evidence or on the basis of the evidence submitted it is not possible to establish that the goods or services were actually supplied;

                           —

                           during the tax assessment procedure to which the issuer of the invoices was subjected, the supplies at issue in the chain were not reviewed?

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


title: Case C-315/07: Order of the President of the Court of 30 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Austria) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/11

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Austria) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt
   (Case C-315/07) (1)

   (2008/C 247/20)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-121/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio
   (Case C-121/16)
   (2016/C 200/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salumificio Murru SpA

      Defendant: Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that provided for in Article 83bis(10) of Legislative Decree 112/2008, in so far as the price of road haulage services on behalf of third parties may not be lower than minimum operating costs determined by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and is not left to be freely determined by the contracting parties?

               2.

               In the light of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s status of public authority, may the competition rules in the internal market be restricted by the national legislation in order to pursue the aim of maintaining road safety?


title: Case T-537/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Hultafors Group v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (Snickers)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/20

         Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Hultafors Group v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (Snickers)
   (Case T-537/11)
   2011/C 362/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hultafors Group AB (Bollebygd, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen and T. Swanstrøm, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (Milano, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 August 2011 in case R 2519/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear its own as well as the third party’s costs, including those incurred during the appeal and opposition proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘Snickers’, for goods in classes 8, 9 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 3740719

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trade mark registration No 348149 of the word mark ‘KICKERS’, for goods in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 32 and 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that a risk of confusion exists between the trade mark application and the opposing trademark.


title: Case T-229/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Sweden v Commission (Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products — Active substance paraquat — Authorisation to place products on the market — Authorisation procedure — Protection of human and animal health)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Sweden v Commission
   (Case T-229/04) (1)

   (Directive 91/414/EEC - Plant protection products - Active substance paraquat - Authorisation to place products on the market - Authorisation procedure - Protection of human and animal health)
   (2007/C 199/60)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Ström van Lier and B. Doherty, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, A. Jacobsen and J. Bering Liisberg, Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by E. Riedl, Agent); and Republic of Finland (represented by T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Directive 2003/112/EC of 1 December 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include paraquat as an active substance (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 32)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Directive 2003/112/EC of 1 December 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include paraquat as an active substance;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden and to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004 (formerly Case C-102/04).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 1995 in Case C-66/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose a directive)

text:
4.3.95                [JN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 54/5
2. consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of            said directives and Articles 5 and 1 89 of the EC Treaty — the
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 2 (3) of         Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,
     Regulation (EEC) No 2237/85.                                      President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                       J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; P. Leger,
Case C-353/93                                                          Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                       on 19 January 1995, in which it:
1 . Article 3 (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     No 1626/85 of 14 June 1985 on protective measures                 1 . declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     applicable to imports of certain Morello cherries is to be              period the laws, regulations and administrative
     interpreted as meaning that if the competent authorities                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     have doubts as to whether the import price declared is                   91 /687/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending Directives
     the true one, they make take all necessary measures to                   64/432/EEC, 72/461 /EEC and 80/215/EEC as regards
     estasblish that price;                                                   certain measures relating to swine-fever and with
                                                                              Council Directive 91 /688/EEC of 11 December 1991
2. consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of                   amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3 (3) of                veterinary inspection problems upon importation of
     Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85;                                             bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat
3 . Article 3 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85 is to be                     or meat products from third countries the Kingdom of
     interpreted as meaning that the phrase 'the exporter in                  Belgium has failed to fulfil the obligations regarding
     the country in which the products originated' refers                     their transposition imposed on it by Article 4 of
     exclusively to an exporter whose undertaking is                          Directive 91 /687/EEC and Article 2 of Directive
     established in the country of origin of the goods.                       91 /688/EEC;
(!) OJ No C 232, 28 . 8 . 1993 .                                       2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(2 ) OJ No L 209, 6 . 8 . 1985 , p. 24 .
(3 ) OJ No L 49, 27. 2 . 1986, p. 1 .                                  (M OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
(4 ) OJ No  L  99, 16 . 4 . 1988, p . 12 .                             (2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 16 .
(5)  OJ No  L  290, 19 . 10 . 1982, p . 28                              (3 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 18 .
(6 ) OJ No  L  73 , 21 . 3 . 1977, p. 1 .
( 7) OJ No  L  156, 15 . 6 . 1985 , p. 13 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 24 January 1995
                         of 19 January 1995                            in Case C-359/93: Commission of the                   European
in    Case     C-66/94: Commission of the              European                Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands ( ! )
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( x )                      (Tender notices for public supply contracts — Review
(Failure by a Member State to fulfilits obligations — Failure               procedure — Notification — Technical specifications)
                      to transpose a directive)                                                    ( 95/C 54/08 )
                              ( 95/C 54/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                 (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                  published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-66/94: Commission of the European                             In Case C-359/93 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gerard Rozet) v. Kingdom of Belgium                 Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) v. Kingdom of the
(Agent: Jan Devadder) — application for a declaration that              Netherlands (Agents: J. W. de Zwaan and T. Heukels ) —
by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and                application for a declaration that the Kingdom of the
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council              Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
Directive 91/687/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending                       Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating
Directives 64/432/EEC, 72/461/EEC and 80/215/EEC as                     procedures for the award of public supply contracts (2 ), as
regards certain measures relating to swine-fever (2) and with           amended by Council Directives 80/767/EEC ( 3 ) and
Council Directive 91 /688/EEC of 11 December 1991                       88/295/EEC (4), and also under Article 30 of the EEC
amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and veterinary                  Treaty, — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and               President, P. J. G. Kapteyn (President of Chamber), G. F.
caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products                  Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
from third countries (3 ) and/or by failing to communicate              (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Tesauro: Advocate
them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
to fulfil its obligations under the penultimate articles of the         24 January 1995 , in which it:


title: Case T-350/04: Action brought on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/24

         Action brought on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-350/04)
   (2005/C 19/54)
   Language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH, of Bitburg (Germany), represented by Michaela Huth-Dierig, lawyer. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., of St Louis (United States of America), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2004 in appeal R 453/2002-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark BUD for goods in Class 32 (beer, ale, porter, malted alcoholic beverages) – Application No 24 711

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               German word and figurative marks Bit, BIT, Bitte ein Bit and Bitburger for goods and services in Classes 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 32, 34 and 42 (inter alia beer and non-alcoholic drinks)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Applicant's appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               There is considerable aural similarity between the marks
               Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 was applied incorrectly
               The BIT marks with earlier priority enjoy extended protection under Article 8(5) of the regulation


title: Case T-186/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Solvay v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Access to the file — Fines — Leniency Notice — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Solvay v Commission
   (Case T-186/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Access to the file - Fines - Leniency Notice - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2011/C 226/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Solvay SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by O.W. Brouwer, D. Mes, lawyers, M. O’Regan and A. Villette, Solicitors, and subsequently by O.W. Brouwer, A. Stoffer, lawyer, M. O’Regan and A. Villette)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(m) of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case C.38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Solvay SA had participated in the infringement during the period prior to May 1995;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Solvay in Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 1766 final at EUR 139,5 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Solvay to bear 80 % of its own costs and to pay 80 % of the Commission’s;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs and to pay 20 % of Solvay’s.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2001 in Case T-214/00: X v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Official ordered to pay costs of earlier proceedings — Part of salary withheld by the creditor institution by way of compensation)

text:
C 259/10                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.9.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 20 June 2001                                                            of 27 June 2001
in Case T-146/00 Stefan Ruf and Martin Stier v Office for                 in Case T-214/00: X v Commission of the European
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                               Communities (1)
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Official ordered to pay costs of earlier proceed-
(Community trade mark — Payment of the application fee                    ings — Part of salary withheld by the creditor institution by
after expiry of the time-limit of one month from filing of the                                   way of compensation)
application for registration — Lapse of the right to be
accorded as a filing date the date when the application was
        lodged — Conditions for restitutio in integrum)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/16)
                         (2001/C 259/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-214/00: X, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, residing in Dalheim (Luxembourg),
                                                                          represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for
In Case T-146/00 Stefan Ruf, of Ettlingen (Germany), Martin               service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Stier, of Pfinztal (Germany), represented by V. Spitz, A.N. Klin-         Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin) —
ger and A. Gaul, lawyers, with an address for service in                  application for annulment of the decision of the Commission
Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal              to withhold part of the applicant’s monthly salary amounting
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von                   to LUF 120 000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and E. Joly) — action against the                 Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for                   and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     27 June 2001, in which it:
Designs) of 28 March 2000 (Case R 198/1998-1) dismissing
the applicants’ request for their rights to be re-established by
according their application for registration a filing date of the         1.    Annulled the Commission’s decision to withhold part of the
date when the application was lodged with the Office — the                      applicant’s monthly salary amounting to LUF 120 000.
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                          2.    Ordered the Commission to repay to the applicant the sum
a judgment on 20 June 2001, in which it:
                                                                                corresponding to two deductions from salary of LUF 60 000,
                                                                                together with interest at the rate of 6.5 % per annum, with
                                                                                effect from the date on which those amounts were withheld and
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                     until actual repayment.
2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                             3.    Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.00.                                                  (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.00.