title: Action brought on 10 July 1997 by Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-253/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97             I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 295/ 11
— order the Commission to pay to the appellant as                              of interpreting the rules or of the fact that all the
      compensation for non-material damage the sum of                          sums relating to operations in which there were
      Bfrs 3 million, or any such sum as the Court of Justice                  found to be irregularities were recovered.
      shall determine,
                                                                         ( B) Removal of land from production on multiannual
— in the alternative, failing a decision ordering the                          basis
      appellant's reinstatement, declare that the removal
      from his post was unfounded and accordingly order
      the Commission to pay him Bfrs 57 443 399 as                             The dispute is based on a 'linguistic' ambiguity with
      compensation for financial damage and the sum of                         regard to the interpretation be given to the term
      Bfrs 20 000 000 as compensation for non-material                         'fallowing', which, according to EAGGF officials
      damage , or any such sum as the Court of Justice shall                   means 'traditional fallowing' whereas agricultural
      determine,                                                               producers and those in charge of inquiries understood
                                                                               it to mean 'dressed fallowing combined with green
                                                                               manuring'.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .
                                                                               In view of this, the financial adjustment at issue is
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            unlawful inasmuch as the technical term used in the
                                                                               abovementioned legislation is ambiguous .
— Irregularity of the procedure before the Court of First
     Instance as regards, in particular, the findings of fact.                 There is another aspect to be borne in mind : even if
                                                                               traditional fallowing had been intended, since it is
— Breach of Community law. In this respect the                                 practised in rotation it would have affected only part
     appellant maintains the arguments put forward at first                    of the area of farms and not necessarily that in
     instance (').                                                             respect of which the premium was granted.
(>) OJ C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994, p . 32 .                                   ( C ) Reimbursement of sugar storage expenditure
                                                                               The adjustment concerned is in respect of the period
                                                                               between 15 October 1992 and 31 December 1992 .
                                                                               According to the Commission, the fact that there was
Action brought on 10 July 1997 by Italian Republic                             no monitoring presented a high risk for the EAGGF' s
      against Commission of the European Communities                           resources, which authorized an adjustment of 10% .
                           ( Case C-253 /97 )
                             ( 97/C 295/18 )                                   There was a system of administrative checks on
                                                                               specialized traders which was particularly close and
                                                                               efficient with regard to sugar stocks. That monitoring
An action against the Commission of the European                               system, backed up by heavy penalties in the event of
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                         breaches, is believed to be such as to guarantee the
the European Communities on 10 July 1997 by the Italian                        almost complete absence of irregularities. This is
Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza,                             indirectly confirmed by checks put in place
acting as Agent, assisted by Gianni De Bellis, Avvocato                        subsequently by the AIMA, which found there to
dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      have been no infringements in the preceding period
the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie Adelaide .                                    either.
The applicant claims that the Court should annul the                           Finally, the adjustment should be annulled or, in the
Commission's decision of 23 April 1997 C(97) 1180                              alternative, appropriately reduced .
final (') to the extent to which, in clearing the accounts
submitted by the Italian Republic for expenditure for
1993 , it declares the sum in issue in the present case is not           ( D ) Reimbursement of storage costs ( sugar)
chargeable to the EAGGF.
                                                                               The dispute is similar to the preceding one, but
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            relating to the period between 1 January 1993 and
                                                                               30 June 1993 , for which a fixed-rate adjustment of
                                                                               2 % was determined .
( A ) Prepayment of refund for beef
                                                                         ( E ) Aid to consumption of olive oil
       The Italian Government requests an appropriate
       reduction of the fixed-rate adjustment, inasmuch as it
       is excessive with respect to the risk run by the                        The Commission unilaterally carried out two
       EAGGF and does not take account of the difficulties                     adjustments : one which was geometrically progressive
 ---pagebreak--- C 295/ 12             fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27. 9 . 97
       in respect of the amounts unduly paid by AIMA to                          — the adjustment, equal to 9,55 % of the
       22 undertakings and another at a fixed rate of 2%                              expenditure in respect of the province of
       on the whole of the declared amounts . Since the                               Agrigento, applied on the assumption that the
       Italian Government considers the adjustments carried                           grape in respect of which the premium was
       out to be unfair, it is constrained to bring an action                         granted was of a variety other than that provided
       before the Court in the following terms:                                       for.
       The Commission decided to carry                 out    both      (I)      Adjustment in the accounts of surpluses of unboned
       progressive and fixed-rate adjustments .                                  beef in the statement of annual expenditure
       Such conduct does not appear to be correct since                          This concerns an adjustment as a consequence of the
       either where there is information available specific                      fact that in the statement of surpluses of beef at the
       adjustments should be made or, where no such                              end of the financial year, no account had been taken
       information exists, recourse should be had to fixed                      of losses during storage.
       rate adjustments . However, it does not appear to be
       possible to adopt both solutions together.
                                                                                Taking into account the surplus considered acceptable
                                                                                by Regulation ( EEC ) No 147/91 ( 5 ), the losses
       The Italian Government challenges, furthermore, the                       recorded were to be considered to be within the
       procedure for carrying out such adjustments.                              abovementioned limits, inasmuch as such weight loss
                                                                                constituted an accounting situation which should be
(F ) Compulsory distillation                                                     noted for each financial year.
        Adjustment was provided for when it emerged that                         Accordingly, the irregularities found were merely
        the quantity of wine distilled for 1993 was below                        procedural and unlikely to prejudice the EAGGF.
        that expected.
                                                                        ( L ) Early subtraction of forecast quantitative losses of
        The      Commission     considers    that    the   correct               boned beef
        determination of the scales ' is the responsibility of
        the Member State alone '. That assertion is not
        substantiated by Regulation ( EEC) No 822/87 ( 2 ),                      The method of subtracting weight loss in boned beef,
        which provides that the so-called 'grid' must be                         which was carried out in general at the freezing stage
        determined by the Commission 'in cooperation with                        at a rate of 0,1 kg per package, is challenged .
        the Member States concerned '.
                                                                                Such subtraction corresponds to a loss below 0,6 %
        If there has been an error in the grid, the Member                       allowed by Regulation (EEC ) No 147/91 . It is
        State cannot automatically be held responsible. In                       therefore no more than a procedural irregularity with
        any event, since it concerns a production forecast                       no impact on the EAGGF accounts .
        which may be subject to variations, it cannot be held
        liable on the mere fact that the forecast is not
                                                                         ( M ) Late payment for boned beef taken into storage
        subsequently confirmed.
 ( G ) Surplus wine in private storage
                                                                                The delays in question are not long and arise out of
                                                                                the need for the AIMA to observe the procedure laid
                                                                                down by law, and in particular the obtention of the
        The adjustment concerned is similar to the above but                      ' anti Mafia ' certificates .
         relates to 1991 to 1992 .
                                                                         ( N ) Inadequate management and monitoring of premiums
 ( H ) Permanent abandonment of wine-growing area                                 for sheep/goats
         The conciliation body has upheld in part the                             The measures taken by the Italian Government,
         observations   of the    Italian  Government      on   the               which the Commission also considers lawful, should
         criteria adopted and the Commission has reduced in                       have resulted in the reduction of the minimum fixed
         part the size of the reduction initially proposed .                       rate ( 2% ) and the maximum rate ( 10% ).
         However, the following may not be considered to be               (') OJ L 139, 30 . 5 . 1997, p . 30 .
         correct :                                                        ( 2 ) OJ L 84 , 27 . 3 . 1987, p . 1 .
                                                                          (') OJ L 17, 23 . 1 . 1991 , p . 9 .
         — the percentage of the surplus estimate applied to
              the province of Agrigento,


title: Case C-318/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid (Free movement of capital — Income tax — Deduction of gifts to bodies recognised as charitable — Deduction restricted to gifts to national bodies — Gifts in kind — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid
   (Case C-318/07) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Income tax - Deduction of gifts to bodies recognised as charitable - Deduction restricted to gifts to national bodies - Gifts in kind - Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation)
   (2009/C 69/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hein Persche

      Defendant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, Article 56 EC and Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) — National legislation under which the grant of the tax advantage for gifts to bodies pursuing objectives of public interest is conditional upon the donee being established in national territory — Applicability of the rules of the EC Treaty on the free movement of capital to gifts in kind, in the form of goods of daily use, made by a national of a Member State to bodies pursuing charitable objectives and having their seat in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Where a taxpayer claims, in a Member State, the deduction for tax purposes of gifts to bodies established and recognised as charitable in another Member State, such gifts come within the compass of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the free movement of capital, even if they are made in kind in the form of everyday consumer goods.

               2.

               Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which, as regards gifts made to bodies recognised as having charitable status, the benefit of a deduction for tax purposes is allowed only in respect of gifts made to bodies established in that Member State, without any possibility for the taxpayer to show that a gift made to a body established in another Member State satisfies the requirements imposed by that legislation for the grant of such a benefit.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-431/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 17 July 2017 — Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 17 July 2017 — Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon
   (Case C-431/17)
   (2017/C 309/40)
   Language of the case: Greece

      Referring court

   Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis

      Defendant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

      Question referred

   Is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the registration of a monk of the Church of Greece as a lawyer, with the competent authority of a Member State other than that in which he obtained his professional qualification, in order for him to practise there under his home-country professional title, may be prohibited by the national legislature on the ground that monks of the Church of Greece cannot, under national law, be entered in the registers of bar associations since, on account of that status possessed by them, they do not provide certain guarantees necessary for practice as a lawyer?

      (1)  Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36).


title: Case C-91/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands) lodged on 17 February 2010 — VAV Autovermietung GmbH v Inspector of the Revenue Department, Customs-South, Rosendaal office

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands) lodged on 17 February 2010 — VAV Autovermietung GmbH v Inspector of the Revenue Department, Customs-South, Rosendaal office
   (Case C-91/10)
   2010/C 113/41
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Breda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VAV Autovermietung GmbH

      Defendant: Inspector of the Revenue Department, Customs-South, Rosendaal office

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law, in particular the principle of the freedom to provide services, as laid down in Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 to 62 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), preclude a national legislative provision under which a person resident or established in the Netherlands who uses in the Netherlands a car registered and leased in another Member State is required, upon the commencement of use with that vehicle of the road network in the Netherlands, to pay a tax, whereby initially the full amount of tax is claimed and, subsequently, after the vehicle ceases to use the Netherlands road network, there is a refund of the excess amount of tax, without interest, as a result of which the amount owed and paid corresponds on balance to the period of use in the Netherlands?

               2.

               If such legislation must be regarded as a restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services, as laid down in Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 to 62 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), is a justificatory ground therefor to be found in the equal treatment of all cars present in the Netherlands, together with the attendant and consequent prevention of misuse and/or prevention of reverse discrimination of both national lessors and their customers, since the tax has to be paid in full even in the case of domestic leasing?


title: Case C-333/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland) — United Kingdom) — Scotch Whisky Association and Others v Lord Advocate, Advocate General for Scotland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Minimum price of alcoholic drinks calculated according to the alcoholic strength of the product — Justification — Article 36 TFEU — Protection of human life and health — Assessment by the national court)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland) — United Kingdom) — Scotch Whisky Association and Others v Lord Advocate, Advocate General for Scotland
   (Case C-333/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Minimum price of alcoholic drinks calculated according to the alcoholic strength of the product - Justification - Article 36 TFEU - Protection of human life and health - Assessment by the national court))
   (2016/C 068/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Session (Scotland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Scotch Whisky Association, spiritsEUROPE, Comité de la Communauté économique européenne des Industries et du Commerce des Vins, Vins aromatisés, Vins mousseux, Vins de liqueur et autres Produits de la Vigne (CEEV)

      Defendants: The Lord Advocate, Advocate General for Scotland

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a minimum price per unit of alcohol for the retail selling of wines, provided that that measure is in fact an appropriate means of securing the objective of the protection of human life and health and that, taking into consideration the objectives of the common agricultural policy and the proper functioning of the common organisation of agricultural markets, it does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective of the protection of human life and health.

               2.

               Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State choosing, in order to pursue the objective of the protection of human life and health by means of increasing the price of the consumption of alcohol, the option of legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a minimum price per unit of alcohol for the retail selling of alcoholic drinks and rejecting a measure, such as increased excise duties, that may be less restrictive of trade and competition within the European Union. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is indeed the case having regard to a detailed analysis of all the relevant factors in the case before it. The fact that the latter measure may procure additional benefits and be a broader response to the objective of combating alcohol misuse cannot in itself justify the rejection of that measure.

               3.

               Article 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court examines national legislation in the light of the justification relating to the protection of the health and life of humans, under that article, it is bound to examine objectively whether it may reasonably be concluded from the evidence submitted by the Member State concerned that the means chosen are appropriate for the attainment of the objectives pursued and whether it is possible to attain those objectives by measures that are less restrictive of the free movement of goods and of the common organisation of agricultural markets.

               4.

               Article 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the review of proportionality of a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not to be confined to examining only information, evidence or other material available to the national legislature when it adopted that measure. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the compatibility of that measure with EU law must be reviewed on the basis of the information, evidence or other material available to the national court on the date on which it gives its ruling, under the conditions laid down by its national law.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case C-66/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/14

         Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-66/05)
   (2005/C 93/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dennis Martin and Pieter van Nuffel, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that by taking into account, when calculating sickness insurance contributions, the pensions paid under the legislation of a Member State other than the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71; (1)

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The purpose of the Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten (General law on special sickness costs; ‘AWBZ’) is to cover the cost of treatment, care and nursing in the case of serious long-term sickness or invalidity. All inhabitants, that is to say all persons resident in the Netherlands, are insured. It is therefore a ‘national insurance’ scheme. Under the Wet Financiering Volksverzekeringen (Law on the financing of national insurance schemes) all insured persons are liable to pay contributions. The contribution is calculated on the basis of their income as a whole.
   The result of this legislation is that a person who lives in the Netherlands and receives both a Netherlands pension and a pension under the legislation of another Member State is insured under the AWBZ for special sickness costs but is also liable to pay contributions. When calculating that contribution, both his Netherlands pension and his other pension are taken into account.
   According to the Commission, Article 33(1) of the Regulation only permits the Netherlands pension to be taken into account when calculating that contribution; according to the Netherlands, the entire income may be taken into account, including the pension which the person concerned receives under the legislation of another Member State.

      (1)  (OJ, English special edition, 1971 (II), p. 416). Regulation amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28 of 30.1.1997, p. 1) and last amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 100 of 6.4.2004, p. 1).


title: Case C-197/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2016 — Commune di Loro Piceno and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2016 — Commune di Loro Piceno and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente
   (Case C-197/16)
   (2016/C 251/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comune di Loro Piceno, Marcello Bartolini, Filippo Bruè, Sergio Forti, Stefano Piatti, Gaetano Silvetti, Gianfranco Silvetti, Rocco Tirabasso, Sante Vagni, Albergo Ristorante Le Grazie Sas di Forti Sergio & Co., Suolificio Elefante Srl, Suolificio Roxy Srl, Aldo Alessandrini

      Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

      Question referred

   On a constructive interpretation of Article 191 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) is it compatible with EU law to proceed with the verification of whether an environmental impact assessment needs to be undertaken (and possibly thereafter to carry out an environmental impact assessment) after the construction of the plant where the consent has been annulled by the national court due to a failure to verify whether the environmental impact assessment was needed, because such a verification had been excluded on the basis of a national law which was contrary to EU law?

      (1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).


title: Case T-326/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in light grey, dark grey, beige, dark red and brown) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in light grey, dark grey, beige, dark red and brown — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in light grey, dark grey, beige, dark red and brown)
      (Case T-326/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in light grey, dark grey, beige, dark red and brown - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2010 (Case R 188/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in light grey, dark grey, beige, dark red and brown as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-318/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 July 2014  — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava, a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 July 2014 — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava, a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje
   (Case C-318/14)
   2014/C 351/02
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava, a.s.

      Defendant: Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 49 in conjunction with Article 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the application of national provisions which require a carrier whose seat is in another Member State and is established in the Czech Republic by means of an organisational unit to obtain, in addition to the licences and concessions authorising a carrier with its seat in the Czech Republic to operate domestic scheduled services (urban public transport), in order to pursue the same activity, also a special authorisation, the issue of which is at the discretion of the administrative authorities?

               2.

               Is it relevant for the answer to Question 1 that this is a case of urban public transport operated under the public service obligation system on the basis of a public service contract for consideration paid from public funds within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70?

               3.

               May Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 (2) of 11 December 1997 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State, in conjunction with Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as allowing a Member State to restrict the operation of urban public transport services by a carrier whose seat is in another Member State in the manner described in Question 1?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 4, p. 10.


title: Case T-496/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Sedes Holding v EUIPO (gratis)

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/24

         Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Sedes Holding v EUIPO (gratis)
   (Case T-496/17)
   (2017/C 318/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Sedes Holding AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: K. Ongena and C. Du Jardin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘gratis’ — Application for EU trade mark No 15 950 603

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2017 in Case R 506/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, join the case dealt with in the present application with the action brought against the decision of EUIPO in Case R 507/2017-2 for the purposes of the oral procedure in view of the connection between them;

               —

               declare the action set out in the application to be admissible and well founded, and accordingly:

                           —

                           primarily, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to register EU trade mark application No 15 950 603 for the figurative mark GRATIS in the trade mark register for all goods claimed under that registration;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to register EU trade mark application No 15 950 603 for the figurative mark GRATIS in the trade mark register for ‘perfumery, cosmetic products, fragrances and deodorants for personal use’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               infringement of the general principles of EU law.


title: Case C-184/01 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency

text:
C 200/48              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
22 March 2001, received at the Court Registry on 26 April              The Commission claims that the Court should:
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Saatgut-
Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger on the                   —     declare that, by not adopting within the time-limits laid
following questions:                                                         down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                             necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC (1)
1.   Can                                                                     of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC con-
                                                                             cerning additives in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic
     (a)   a limited company (GmbH) established under Ger-                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
           man law be an ‘organisation of holders’ within the                that directive;
           meaning of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
           (EC) No 1768/95 (1) of 24 July 1995, and can
     (b) such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
           the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-         Pleas in law and main arguments
           mentioned regulation even in respect of holders
           who are not shareholders in it but members of an            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
           association which is a shareholder, and can                 directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                       each Member State to which they are addressed.
     (c)   such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
           the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-
           mentioned regulation (for a consideration) even in          Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
           respect of holders who are neither shareholders nor         to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
           members of an association which is a shareholder?           to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                       or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
2.   Must the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regu-           Community.
     lation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 (2) , read in
     conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation               It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
     (EC) No 1768/95, be interpreted as meaning that the               measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
     holder of a plant variety right protected under Regulation
     No 2100/94 can request the information referred to
     in the abovementioned provisions from any farmer,                 The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
     irrespective of whether or not there is any indication that       has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpo-
     he has carried out an act of use in respect of the                ration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
     variety in question under Article 13(2) of Regulation
     No 2100/94, or at least otherwise used the variety in
     question on his holding?                                          (1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 39.
(1) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt
                                                                       against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by
                                                                       the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
                                                                           Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency
Action brought on 27 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                        (Case C-184/01 P)
                        (Case C-183/01)                                                        (2001/C 200/86)
                        (2001/C 200/85)                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
                                                                       2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency was
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    ties on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt, represented by
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal                  Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with
Adviser.                                                               an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 200/49
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Where a lessee fills up a leased car in the name and at the
                                                                       expense of the lessor at filling stations, is there a supply of fuel
—     set aside the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by          by the lessor to the lessee and must tax be paid on this supply
      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities          at the place of supply within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of
      (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v European          Directive 77/388/EEC or is the ‘onward supply’ included in the
      Environment Agency;                                              lessor’s supply of a service that is taxable under Article 9 of
                                                                       Directive 77/388/EEC?
—     proceed to adjudicate afresh in the matter, and thus:
      —     annul the decision cancelling internal competition         (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
            EEA/T/99/1, communicated to the appellant by
            letter of 27 September 1999;
      —     annul the decision of 13 December 1999 transfer-
            ring the appellant from the Commission to the
            European Environment Agency, inasmuch as it
            classifies him in grade A5, step 3, with effect from
            1 November 1999;
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
      —     order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets      icht Stuttgart by order of 4 April 2001 in the case of
            of proceedings.                                            Alexander Dory v Federal Republic of Germany —
                                                                                Kreiswehrersatzamt Schwäbisch Gmünd
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Case C-186/01)
—     The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in                                 (2001/C 200/88)
      finding that the Commission’s threats ‘definitively to
      cease using transfers in future’ for the benefit of the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      European Environment Agency in the event of a refusal            European Communities by order of 4 April 2001 by the
      to cancel internal competition EEA/T/99/1 did not have           Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Administrative Court, Stuttgart),
      the effect of vitiating the way in which the appointing          which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
      authority had exercised its discretion by proceeding to          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alexander Dory v
      cancel the competition in question.                              Federal Republic of Germany Kreiswehrersatzamt (District
                                                                       Recruiting Office) Schwäbisch Gmünd on the following ques-
—     The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in
                                                                       tion, in particular with regard to the interpretation of Article 2
      imposing conditions for appointment as an established
                                                                       of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
      official which are not provided for in the third paragraph
                                                                       tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
      of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations and in failing to
                                                                       as regards access to employment, vocational training and
      verify whether the European Environment Agency had in
                                                                       promotion, and working conditions (1):
      fact reconstituted the appellant’s career as regards both
      the his grade on establishment and his seniority in step.
                                                                       Does German compulsory military service for men only
                                                                       conflict with European law?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of 22 February 2001 in the case of Auto Lease
            Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für Finanzen
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                         (Case C-185/01)                               Verwaltungssenats Salzburg by order of that court of 25
                                                                       April 2001 in the case of Francisco Javier Gonzales
                         (2001/C 200/87)                                                             Moreno
                                                                                (Case C-188/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 22 February 2001 by the
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                                    (2001/C 200/89)
at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Auto Lease Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Finanzen on the following question (1):                                European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Milano - Sezione XII - by order of that court of 24 March 1997 in the case of AGAS (Abbruzzi Gas Agas) SpA against Amministrazione Tributaria (Case C-152/97)

text:
No C 199/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         28 . 6 . 97
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff must                    Tributaria Provinciale di Milano — Sezione XII — by
be interpreted as meaning that Echinacea purpurea                     order of that court of 24 March 1997 in the case of AGAS
extract-based drops must be classified under heading                  (Abbruzzi       Gas    Agas )      SpA   against Amministrazione
3004 .                                                                                Tributaria
                                                                                ( Case C-152/97 )
(') OJ No C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .                                                                     ( 97/C 199/ 19 )
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Commissione
                                                                      Tributaria Provinciale di Milano ( Provincial Tax Court,
                                                                      Milan ) — Sezione XII (Twelfth Chamber ) — of 24 March
Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of                  1997, received at the Court Registry on 21 April 1997, for
  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic              a preliminary ruling in the case of AGAS ( Abbruzzi Gas
                          Case C-146/97                               Agas ) SpA against Amministrazione Tributaria on the
                                                                      following question :
                          ( 97/C 199/ 18 )
                                                                      Do the provisions on the harmonization of indirect taxes
                                                                      on contributions of capital to capital companies ( ! ) in the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                   Union also include merger by acquisition of one company
before the Court of Justice on 16 April 1997 by the                   by another company which already owns 100% of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                   capital of the former ?
by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos             (') Article 4 of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 ( OJ No
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                          L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p. 5 ), amended by Directives 73/80/EEC
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        of 9 April 1973 ( OJ No L 103 , 18 . 4 . 1973 , p. 15 ) and 85/
                                                                          303/EEC of 10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 15 . 6 . 1985 , p. 23 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission                   Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen by order of that court
     Directive 93/70/EEC of 28 July 1993 establishing                 of 16 April 1997 in the application for review of
     Community analysis methods for official control of               legislative provisions brought by Georg Badeck and
     feedingstuffs ('), the Hellenic Republic has failed to           other members and former members of the Hessischer
     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that              Landtag, interveners: Hessischer Ministerprasident and
     Directive ,                                                        Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen
                                                                                Case C-158/97 )
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                                                    ( 97/C 199/20 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the
                                                                      Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen ( State Constitutional
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty                Court, Hessen ) of 16 April 1997, which was received at
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be             the Court Registry on 24 April 1997, for a preliminary
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                   ruling in the application for review of legislative
Member State to which it is addressed . Under the first               provisions brought by Georg Badeck and other
paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States               members        and    former        members    of  the   Hessischer
are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or              Landtag, interveners : Hessischer Ministerprasident and
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising           Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen,
out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the               on the following question :
institutions of the Community. The Hellenic Republic has
not yet taken the appropriate measures to transpose the               Does Article 2 ( 1 ) and (4 ) of Council Directive 76/207/
Directive in question fully into the Greek legal system.              EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
                                                                      principle of equal treatment for men and women as
 (*) OJ Nd L 234, 17. 9 . 1993 , p . 17 .                             regards access to employment, vocational training and
                                                                      promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 .
                                                                       1976, p. 40, hereinafter 'the Equal Treatment Directive')
                                                                      preclude national rules under which :


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-220/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-248/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/76)                                                       (2001/C 118/79)
By order of 14 December 2000 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-220/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-248/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v France.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-275/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-411/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/77)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/80)
By order of 19 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-275/99: (reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg): Société            from the register of Case C-411/99: Commission of the
Adidas Sarragan France v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du            European Communities v Austria.
Bas-Rhin.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-54/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-236/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/81)
                       (2001/C 118/78)
                                                                      By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-54/00: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-236/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v Italy.
European Communities v Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case T-30/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2007 — SID v Commission (State aid — Decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Concept of party concerned — Trade union)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/22

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2007 — SID v Commission
   (Case T-30/03) (1)

   (State aid - Decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Concept of party concerned - Trade union)
   (2007/C 140/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: P. Bentley QC, A. Worsøe and F. Ragolle, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially H. van Vliet, then N. Khan, Agents)

      supported by: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent) and Kingdom of Norway (represented by: I. Høyland, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 not to raise objections to the Danish tax measures applicable to seafarers on board vessels registered in the Danish international register
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

               3.

               All the parties are ordered to bear their own costs relating to the interventions.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.


title: Action brought on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-173/97)

text:
 No C 199/ 14         EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28 . 6 . 97
 project entitled 'Plan d'Eau sur le Lot — Integration d'une             paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States
 microcentrale hydroelectrique basse chute dans le seuil '               are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
 (Stretch of water on the River Lot — Incorporation in the               particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising
 barrage weir of a small low-head hydro-electric power                   out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the
 station ).                                                              institutions of the Community.
 On 17 January 1991 an advance payment of ECU 83 928                     The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
was made to the said contracting parties .                               yet taken the appropriate measures to transpose the
                                                                         Directive in question fully into the Greek legal system .
Thereafter, the project was modified and the construction
                                                                         (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .
of a small hydro-electric power station was abandoned . By
letter of 6 November 1992, the SIVU stated that the
financial support of the Community was no longer needed
and, by letter of 18 November 1992, the Commission
terminated the contract and demanded repayment of the
sum advanced .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 5 May 1997 by Fédération Française
The Commission has been unsuccessful in the steps which                 des Sociétés d'Assurances (FFSA), Union des Sociétés
it has taken since then to secure the said repayment.                  Etrangères d'Assurances ( USEA), Groupe des Assurances
                                                                       Mutuelles Agricoles ( Groupama), Fédération Nationale
                                                                        des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances (FNSAGA),
(■) OJ No L 350, 27. 12 . 1985 , p . 29 .                              Fédération Française des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réas
                                                                        surances ( FCA) and Bureau International des Producteurs
                                                                       d'Assurances et de Réassurances (BIPAR ) against the
                                                                       judgment delivered on 27 February 1997 by the Third
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities in Case T-l 06/95
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the                  between the Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assuran
    European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 ces ( FFSA), Union des Sociétés Etrangères d'Assurances
                                                                        ( USEA), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles
                       ( Case C-173/97
                                                                       ( Groupama), Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Agents
                         ( 97/C 199/27)                                Généraux d'Assurances (FNSAGA), Fédération Française
                                                                       des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réassurances (FCA ) and
                                                                       Bureau International des Producteurs d'Assurances et de
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                    Réassurances       (BIPAR)       and     the Commission  of the
before the Court of Justice on 5 May 1997 by the                       European Communities, supported by the French Republic
Commission of the European Communities, represented                                                   and La Poste
by Maria-Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an                                          ( Case C-l 74/97 P)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                                                    ( 97/C 199/28 )
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 February
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            1997 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
                                                                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                  in Case T-106/95 between Fédération Française des Socié
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative               tés d'Assurances (FFSA), Union des Sociétés Etrangères
                                                                       d'Assurances ( USEA ), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles
     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
     Directive   91 /676/EEC        of    12  December      1991       Agricoles ( Groupama ), Fédération Nationale des Syndicats
                                                                       d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances ( FNSAGA ), Fédération
     concerning the protection of waters against pollution
                                                                       Française des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réassurances
     caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (') and to
                                                                       ( FCA) and Bureau International des Producteurs d'Assu
     identify vulnerable zones on its territory, the Hellenic
                                                                       rances et de Réassurances ( BIPAR) and the Commission of
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     EC Treaty and that Directive,                                     the European Communities was brought before the Court
                                                                       of Justice of the European Communities on 5 May 1997
                                                                       by Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances ( FFSA ),
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        Union Syndicale des Sociétés Etrangères d'Assurances
                                                                       ( USEA ), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    ( Groupama ), Fédération des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux
                                                                       d'Assurances (FNSAGA ), Fédération Française des Cour
                                                                       tiers d'Assurance et des Réassurances (FCA) and Bureau
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty                 International des Producteurs d'Assurance et de Réassu
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be              rances ( BIPAR), represented by Dominique Voillemot,
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Member State to which it is addressed . Under the first                Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .


title: Case T-225/05: Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Guido Strack against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/28

         Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Guido Strack against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-225/05)
   (2005/C 205/50)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2005 by Guido Strack, residing in Cologne (Germany), represented by J. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               take cognisance of the application lodged by the applicant under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               declare the application to be admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the defendant's decision of 22 March 2005 rejecting the appeal;

               —

               set aside the defendant's decision of 19 November 2003 rejecting the application for the post;

               —

               set aside competition procedure COM/A/057/04;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant in the amount of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by him on account of the unlawfully implemented selection procedure and the decision to reject him, which was delayed and notified to him only after repeated requests;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant took part in selection procedure COM/A/057/04. By letter of 19 November 2004 the defendant informed the applicant that his application had not been considered. The appeal which the applicant made against this decision was rejected by the European Commission in its decision of 18 March 2005. The present application seeks to have the appointing authority's decision of 19 November 2004 in the form of its appeal decision of 18 March 2005 set aside and also to have selection procedure COM/A/057/04 set aside.
   The applicant is relying on five grounds to support his application. Firstly he asserts that the selection procedure infringes the European Commission's Decision of 28 April 2004 regarding the middle management level (C(2004) 15997, VM 73-2004) as the pre-selection body did not include any member of another Directorate-General. Furthermore, it is claimed that there is an infringement of Article 11 and Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities by reason of the participation of two members of the pre-selection body in the selection of candidates. Thirdly, the applicant submits that Articles 2, 4, 5, 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities have been infringed as the appointing authority did not choose the most suitable candidate. In addition, he claims that the decision of 19 November 2004 rejecting his candidature infringes Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities as the justification for it is not given. Lastly, the applicant submits that there has been a breach of the principle of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials as he was not properly informed that the post had been filled by someone else.


title: Case C-400/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 19 October 2009 — Orifarm A/S, Orifarm Supply A/S, Handelsselskabet af 5 januar 2002 A/S, in liquidation, Ompackningsselskabet af 1 november 2005 A/S v Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Merck Sharp & Dohme

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 19 October 2009 — Orifarm A/S, Orifarm Supply A/S, Handelsselskabet af 5 januar 2002 A/S, in liquidation, Ompackningsselskabet af 1 november 2005 A/S v Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Merck Sharp & Dohme
   (Case C-400/09)
   2009/C 312/38
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Orifarm A/S, Orifarm Supply A/S, Handelsselskabet af 5 januar 2002 A/S, in liquidation, Ompackningsselskabet af 1 november 2005 A/S

      Respondents: Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Merck Sharp & Dohme

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma v Rhône-Poulenc Pharma
                   (1) and Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v Paranova
                   (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a parallel importer which is the holder of the marketing authorisation for, and possesses information on, a medicinal product imported in parallel, and which issues instructions to a separate undertaking for the purchase and repackaging of a medicinal product, for the detailed design of the product’s packaging and for arrangements in relation to the product, infringes the rights of the trade mark proprietor by indicating itself — and not the separate undertaking which holds the repackaging authorisation, has imported the product and has carried out the physical repackaging, including (re)affixing of the trade mark proprietor’s trade mark — as the repackager on the outer packaging of the medicinal product imported in parallel?

               2.

               Is it of significance in answering Question 1 that an assumption might be made that, where the marketing authorisation holder indicates itself as the repackager instead of the undertaking which physically carried out the repackaging to order, there is no risk that the consumer/end user might be misled into assuming that the trade mark proprietor is responsible for the repackaging?

               3.

               Is it of significance in answering Question 1 that an assumption might be made that the risk of misleading the consumer/end user into assuming that the trade mark proprietor is responsible for the repackaging is excluded if the undertaking which physically carried out the repackaging is indicated as being the repackager?

               4.

               Is it only the risk that the consumer/end user might be misled into assuming that the trade mark proprietor is responsible for the repackaging which is of significance in answering Question 1, or are other considerations regarding the trade mark proprietor also relevant, for example (a) that the entity which undertakes the importation and physical repackaging and (re)affixes the trade mark proprietor’s trade mark on the product’s outer packaging potentially on its own account infringes the trade mark proprietor’s trade mark by so doing, and (b) that it may be due to factors for which the entity that physically carried out the repackaging is responsible that the repackaging affects the original condition of the product or that the presentation of the repackaging is of such a kind that it must be assumed to harm the trade mark proprietor’s reputation (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v Paranova)?

               5.

               Is it of significance in answering Question 1 that the holder of the marketing authorisation, which has indicated itself as being the repackager, at the time of the notification of the trade mark proprietor prior to the intended sale of the parallel imported medicinal product once repackaged, belongs to the same group as the actual repackager (sister company)?

      (1)  [1996] ECR I-3671.

      (2)  [1996] ECR I-3457.


title: Case T-292/10: Action brought on 1 July 2010 — Monty Program v Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/15

         Action brought on 1 July 2010 — Monty Program v Commission
   (Case T-292/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monty Program AB (Tuusula, Finland) (represented by: H. Anttilainen-Mochnacz, lawyer and C. Pouncey, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of Commission Decision No C(2010) 142 final of 21 January 2010, in Case COMP/M.5529 — Oracle/Sun Microsystems; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Article 1 of the Commission Decision No C(2010) 142 final of 21 January 2010 in Case COMP/M.5529 — Oracle/Sun Microsystems declaring Oracle Corporation's acquisition of sole control of Sun Microsystems compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
   In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant claims that Commission has wrongly assessed the nature of Oracle’s pledges, thereby infringing Article 2 of the EC Merger Regulation and the Commission notice on remedies (2). In applicant’s view, by incorrectly classifying Oracle’s ten pledges of future behaviour as new factual elements allowing the removal of all competition concerns and an unconditional clearance decision, the Commission committed an error in law.

               Secondly, the applicant claims that by not applying the Commission notice on remedies, and consequently failing to market test the pledges, the Commission has breached both essential procedural rules and the applicant's legitimate expectations by depriving it of the opportunity formally to make its views on Oracle's pledges known. Furthermore, by classifying Oracle's pledges as new factual elements rather than as commitments, the Commission has misused its powers.

               Thirdly, the Commission has infringed Article 2 of the EC merger Regulation by incorrectly assessing the effects of the pledges on Oracle post merger and in doing so has failed to meet the standard of proof imposed on the Commission under EU law, thereby committing a manifest error of assessment. The Commission accordingly erred in law in taking a clearance decision under Article 2 of the EC Merger Regulation.

               Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment in its evaluation of the competitive constraint imposed by other open source competitors on Oracle post merger. The Commission erred in its assessment that even if Oracle were to remove MySQL (Sun Microsystems’ main database software product) from the market following the merger, other open source database vendors would replace the competitive constraint exerted by MySQL.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (OJ 2008 C 267, p. 1).


               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/24

         Removal from the register of Case C-13/04 (1)

   (2005/C 57/40)

      (Language of the case: Finnish)

   By order of 26 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-13/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.


title: Case C-510/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2015 by Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-398/10 Fapricela v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/25

         Appeal brought on 24 September 2015 by Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-398/10 Fapricela v Commission
   (Case C-510/15 P)
   (2015/C 381/27)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (represented by: T. Caiado Guerreiro and R. Rodrigues Lopes, advogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               (i)

               adjust the volume of sales taken into account in the calculation of the fine;

               (ii)

               set aside the judgment under appeal, in part, in so far as it relates to:

                           —

                           the volume of sales to be taken into account;

                           —

                           the burden of proof relating to the duration of the participation in the cartel;

                           —

                           the attribution of a greater degree of gravity of the infringement compared with Fundia;

                           —

                           the allocation of an excessive additional amount;

               (iii)

               and accordingly, adjust the amount of the fine, specifically by:

                           —

                           adjusting the volume of sales;

                           —

                           adjusting the duration of the infringement;

                           —

                           adjusting the reference year for calculating the fine;

                           —

                           adjusting the degree of gravity of the infringement, by attributing a degree of gravity of 16 % (equal to that attributed to Fundia); and

                           —

                           adjusting the additional amount;

               (iv)

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               a)

               The volume of sales, taken into account by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the penalty and upheld by the General Court, is tainted by clear errors which need to be adjusted.

               b)

               The General Court improperly allocated the burden of proof and, in that respect, infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence in the examination of the facts.

               c)

               The General Court did not fulfil its obligation to state reasons and infringed the principle of equal treatment in its calculation of the penalty, resulting in a finding of an excessive degree of gravity of the infringement.

               d)

               The General Court infringed the principle of proportionality in its determination of the additional amount for the purpose of deterrence, which affected, inter alia, the proportionality of the penalty.


title: Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Antoinette Losch against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-13/97)

text:
No C 74/26            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Elf Atochem                    As regards the annulment of the reports themselves, the
   against the Commission of the European Communities               applicant states that the very existence of the documents
                         Case T-9/97 )
                                                                    which its representatives refused to sign, but which were
                                                                    countersigned by the representatives of the Member State,
                         ( 97/C 74/52 )                             constitutes an act adversely affecting it, since those
                                                                    documents — which, whilst imperfect, are in the style of
                                                                    reports — are liable to have an influence on the
                (Language of the case: French)                      establishment of the facts investigated by the Commission,
                                                                    on their characterization, thereby altering the applicant's
                                                                    legal situation to its detriment, on the developments in the
An action against the Commission of the European                    matter and on the preparation of the final act. Instead of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   running the risk of nullifying the final act which may be
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January                  adopted by the Commission, it would seem preferable, in
 1997 by Elf Atochem, having its seat at Puteaux (France ),         the interest of the sound administration of justice and
represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an            providing greater protection for the right to a fair hearing,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                to declare the acts adversely affecting the applicant null
Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe.                                         and void before they produce more serious effects liable to
                                                                    vitiate the whole of the procedure .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in their entirety the reports on the investigation
     into the company Elf Atochem and the annexes
     thereto, namely:                                               Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Antoinette Losch
                                                                     against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-13/97 )
     — the report of the investigation on 18 November
         1996, drawn up on 18 and 19 November 1996,                                           ( 97/C 74/53 )
         comprising, in Annex 1 , a record of the oral
         explanations of Elf Atochem which the
         representatives of that company refused to sign,                            (Language of the case: French)
     — the report of the investigation on 19 and                    An action against the Court of Justice of the European
         20 November 1996 , drawn up on 20 November                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
         1996, comprising, in Annex 1 , a record of the oral        Instance of the European Communities on 20 January
         explanations of Elf Atochem which the                      1997 by Antoinette Losch, residing at Capellen,
         representatives of that company refused to sign.           represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                    Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 8 November 1996 the Commission informed the
applicant by fax that it had decided to undertake an
investigation pursuant to Article 14 ( 2 ) of Regulation            — annul the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the
No 17 into Elf Aquitaine and its subsidiaries and, in                    applicant's request that her name be entered on the list
particular, the applicant . That investigation took place on             of persons having manifested their interest in being the
18 , 19 and 20 November 1996 .                                           subject of a decision terminating their services as a
                                                                         result of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,
The applicant seeks the annulment of the reports drawn
up by the Commission's agents, since it considers that the          — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Commission has infringed its right to a fair hearing, first,
by drawing up, after the event, reports relating to the             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
discussions which they had had with certain members of
the applicant's staff ( for which Article 14 of Regulation
No 17 makes no provision ) and, second, by misusing the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
procedure laid down by Article 14 of Regulation No 17 in            those previously advanced in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and
order to try to obtain information which may be obtained            Others v. Court of Justice (').
only on the basis of Article 11 of that Regulation and
within the framework of the procedural guarantees                   H OJ No C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996, p . 33 .
attaching to its implementation, and, lastly, by drawing up
those documents in a manner which is open to challenge
in any event.


title: Case T-212/13: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2013 — Madaus v OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/30

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2013 — Madaus v OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)
   (Case T-212/13) (1)

   2013/C 336/67
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case T-153/00: Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Spain Pharma S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.8.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Council of the European Union and the                   —     declare that the Commission has improperly failed to act,
      Commission of the European Communities to pay to the                    inasmuch as it has unlawfully omitted to take a decision
      applicant, pursuant to Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the                on the complaint made pursuant to Article 3 of Regu-
      sum of 762 245 euro in respect of the damage suffered,                  lation No 17/62; and
      subject to the making up of the sum due to the full
      amount;                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the Council of the European Union and the
      Commission of the European Communities to pay the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      costs.
                                                                        The applicant in the present case, whose principal activity is
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the parallel exportation of medicinal products, objects to the
                                                                        Commission’s failure to respond to the complaint submitted
                                                                        by it regarding the Merck group. That complaint concerned
The applicant company, an undertaking specialising in the               the strategy developed by the latter to combat the parallel
development and manufacture of effervescent cosmetic prod-              market in medicinal products, which took the form of such
ucts for the bath which exports a significant proportion of its         measures as:
production to the United States, is claiming compensation for
the damage suffered as a result of the retaliatory measures             —     the repeated and systematic refusal, on the strength of its
applied by the American authorities to a series of Community                  dominant position, to supply the applicant with three of
products, including bath preparations other than bath salts, in               its special pharmaceutical products;
the context of the dispute concerning the European system for
the importation of bananas. It maintains that the damage                —     the conclusion of concerted agreements with its licensees
which it has suffered is a direct consequence of:                             and certain wholesalers containing an absolute prohib-
                                                                              ition on the exportation of the products referred to above;
—     the adoption and retention by the Council and by
      the Commission of the Community system for the                    —     the establishment of a system of market quotas.
      importation of fresh bananas in breach of the rules laid
      down by GATT and the WTO; and of
                                                                        The complaint was submitted on 15 December 1997, but no
—     the fact that those two institutions omitted to take              decision has been taken on it to date. According to the
      into account the situation of undertakings subjected to           applicant, that inactivity, of over two years’ duration, is placing
      sanctions, which was bound to result from the approach            it in a situation of serious defencelessness. The applicant also
      adopted by them, in violation of the Community prin-              maintains, moreover, that the relevant case-law must be
      ciples of equality and non-discrimination, the protection         understood as imposing on the Commission the obligation to
      of legitimate expectations, freedom to pursue a pro-              examine the facts and legal aspects brought to its attention
      fessional activity and proportionality.                           and to communicate to the party concerned its assessment
                                                                        thereof.
Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Spain Pharma S.A.
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    Action brought on 8 June 2000 by Nicole Robert against
                                                                                the European Parliament
                         (Case T-153/00)
                                                                                (Case T-157/00)
                         (2000/C 247/55)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/56)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              An action against the Court of Auditors was brought before
European Communities on 6 June 2000 by Spain Pharma                     the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
S.A., established in Madrid, represented by Ricardo Gutiérrez           8 June 2000 by Nicole Robert, residing at Strassen (Luxem-
Sánchez, lawyer.                                                       bourg), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar.


               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/4

         Appointment of the First Advocate General
   (2008/C 301/05)
   The Court of Justice appointed Ms Sharpston as First Advocate General for a period of one year from 7 October 2008 to 6 October 2009, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure.


23.12.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 372/9
       Removal from the register of Case C-418/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-419/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/18)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/19)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-418/99: Commission of the European           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v Italian Republic.                                     the register of Case C-419/99: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.


title: Case C-667/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 December 2016 — M.N.J.P.W. Nooren & J.M.F.D.C. Nooren, heirs of M.N.F.M. Nooren v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 December 2016 — M.N.J.P.W. Nooren & J.M.F.D.C. Nooren, heirs of M.N.F.M. Nooren v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-667/16)
   (2017/C 078/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: M.N.J.P.W. Nooren & J.M.F.D.C. Nooren, heirs of M.N.F.M. Nooren

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

      Questions referred

               1.

               Has the EU legislature provided for the possibility, in Articles 70, 71 and 72 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 (1) of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, — in situations such as that in the main proceedings, in which there are multiple instances of non-compliance within the same area of cross-compliance — of aggregating the reductions of aid for repeated and unrepeated instances of negligent non-compliance with cross-compliance requirements, on the one hand, and for instances of intentional non-compliance with cross-compliance conditions, on the other?

               2.

               If so, which article or article section provides the basis for this and what is the calculation rule for such aggregation?

               3.

               If not, can a basis for this be found elsewhere under EU law?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65.