               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/49

         Action brought on 2 February 2004 by Orlando Perez-Diaz against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-41/04)
   (2004/C 94/134)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 2004 by Orlando Perez-Diaz, residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul decision COM/R/A/1/1999 of the Selection Committee not to place the applicant on the reserve list for that selection, notified to him by letter of 21 January 2003 from the Head of Unit of personnel in the Commission's Directorate-General for Research, on behalf of the Chairman of the Selection Committee;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay him damages, of an amount to be assessed by the Court, to compensate for non-material damage and damage to his career resulting from the incorrectness of the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in the present case is the same as in Cases T-102/01 (1) and T-156/03 (2)
      Orlando Perez-Diaz v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those invoked in Case T-156/03, cited above.

      (1)  Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 ([2002] ECR-SC I-A-165; II-871).

      (2)  OJ C 171, of 19.7.03, p. 37.


title: Case T-225/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014 — iNET24 Holding v OHIM (IDIRECT24)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/36

         Action brought on 11 April 2014 — iNET24 Holding v OHIM (IDIRECT24)
   (Case T-225/14)
   2014/C 184/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: iNET24 Holding AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2014 in Case R 1867/2013-5;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Designation of the European Union for the international registration of the word mark ‘IDIRECT24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 38 and 42 — International registration No 1 145 181

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-361/13: Action brought on 26 June 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/28

         Action brought on 26 June 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-361/13)
   2013/C 260/51
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Schatz and A. Tokár, Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by refusing to grant the allowance by reason of birth provided for by Law No 592/2006 to persons entitled to it who reside in a Member State other than the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems.

               —

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The allowance by reason of birth provided for by Law No 592/2006 is an old-age benefit within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004 which must also be granted to persons entitled to it who reside outside the Member State concerned (in the present case, the Slovak Republic). A provision of domestic law may not therefore limit the right to receive the allowance by reason of birth of those entitled to it who reside outside the Slovak Republic. The provision of the domestic law of the Slovak Republic which lays down such a limitation is therefore incompatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation No 883/2004.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.


title: Case C-483/01: Action brought on 13 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 84/46                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
Action brought on 11 December 2001 by Commission of                      Action brought on 13 December 2001 by the Commission
 the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium                     of the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-479/01)                                                          (Case C-483/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/80)
                          (2002/C 84/79)
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                     Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
11 December 2001 by the Commission of the European                       represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for
Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent,              service in Luxembourg.
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              the Court should:
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or by failing to communi-
                                                                               and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      cate to the Commission the laws, regulations and adminis-
                                                                               with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996
      trative provisions necessary to comply with Commission
                                                                               laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
      Directive 1999/19/EC of 18 March 1999 amending
                                                                               the health of workers and the general public against the
      Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 (1), the
                                                                               dangers arising from ionizing radiation (1), or at any rate
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               by failing to notify those measures to the Commission,
      under that directive and the EC Treaty;
                                                                               the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under that directive;
2.    Order Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-466/01; the period prescribed by the                  advanced in Case C-389/01 (2); although the prescribed time-
directive expired on 31 May 2000.                                        limit (13 May 2000) has expired, France has not yet adopted
                                                                         the majority of the provisions necessary in order to transpose
                                                                         the directive into national law.
(1) Commission Directive 1999/19/EC of 18 March 1999 amending
    Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a
    harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in         (1) OJ L 314 of 4.12.1996, p. 20.
    length and over OJ 1999 L 83, p. 48.                                 (2) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001, p. 16.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Case T-146/95: Giorgio Bernardi v. European Parliament (Actions for annulment of measures - Ombudsman - Nominations - Appointment procedure - Inadmissibility - Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
24 . 8 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 247/ 15
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                nominations for the office of Ombudsman ' published on
                        of 11 July 1996                                23 May 1 995 ( OJ No C 127, 1995 , p. 4 ) and all related and
                                                                       consequential acts, the Court of First Instance ( Third
in Case T-102/95 : Jean-Pierre Aubineau v. Commission of               Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf
                the European Communities (')                           and A. Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator,
(Officials — Members ofthe temporary staff— Contract of                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 1 July 1996 in
     employment — Transfer — Place of employment)                      which it :
                          ( 96/C 247/31 )
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it seeks the
                                                                           annulment of the letter of the Secretary-General of the
               (Language of the case: French)                              European Parliament of 15 June 1995;
In Case T-102/95 : Jean-Pierre Aubineau , a member of the              2 . for the rest, dismisses the action as inadmissible;
temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges              3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire          (') O J No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Fabrizio
Minneci ) — application , first, for annulment of the decision
of the Director-General of the Joint Research Centre,
contained in his note of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily
transferring the applicant to the post of Adviser to the Head
of the Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics,              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Ispra and, second, for compensation for the non-material
damage alleged by the applicant — the Court of First                                           of 11 July 1996
Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts,                  in Case T-170/95 : Paolo Carrer v. Court of Justice of the
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges ; J. Palacio                                 European Communities (')
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (Officials — Competition — Selection board — Decision by
on 11 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as                    the selection board finding that a candidate had failed the
follows :
                                                                       oral test — Principle of equality of treatment —
                                                                       Infringement ofthe competition notice — Assessment by the
1 . the application is dismissed;                                                               selection board)
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/33 )
2 . each of the parties shall bear its own costs, including
     those relating to the procedure for interim relief.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       In Case T-170/95 : Paolo Carrer, residing at Kehlen
                                                                       ( Luxembourg ), an official of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Roberta Borlandi ,
                                                                       of the Genoa Bar, against the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Timothy Millett and
                                                                       Antonio Borruso ) — applications for the annulment of the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               oral test in internal competition by tests No CJ 51 /93 , the
                        of 11 July 1996                                annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority on
                                                                       the basis of the reserve list drawn up by the selection board
in Case T-146/95 : Giorgio Bernardi v. European
                                                                       for that competition , and the annulment of the decision of
                           Parliament ( 1 )
                                                                       the complaints committee of 15 June 1995 rejecting the
 (Actions for annulment of measures — Ombudsman —                      applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
Nominations — Appointment procedure — Inadmissibility                  Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the
             — Principle of non-discrimination)                        Chamber ), R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H.
                          ( 96/C 247/32 )                              Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 1996 , in
                                                                       which it :
               (Language of the case: French)                          1 . dismisses the action ;
In Case T-146/95 : Giorgio Bernardi , residing in                      2 . orders the defendant to bear its own costs and 1 /5 of the
Luxembourg, represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi , of the                     applicant 's costs, the latter to bear 4/5 of his costs .
Massa-Carrara Bar, and , at the hearing, by Siegfried
Vormann, of the Trier Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       (') OJ No C-299 , 1 1 . 11 . 1995 .
Luxembourg at the applicant's address, 33 Rue Godchaux ,
v. European Parliament ( Agents : Ezio Perillo and Christian
Pennera ) — application for the annulment of the ' Call for


title: Case T-89/02: Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Check Point Software Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 156/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
The applicant further submits that Article 8 (4) of the Merger            Pleas in law and main arguments
Control regulation, which constitutes the legal basis of the
present Decision, is only applicable where a concentration has
been implemented. The applicant states, however, that the                 The Communuity Trade          SECURECLIENT
concentration in this case has not been implemented in any
                                                                          Mark concerned:
way.
                                                                          Product or service:           ‘Computer software to protect
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the modalities for the                                               systems       from    unauthorised
divestiture constitute an infringement of Community law.                                                access’, in International Class 9.
According to the applicant, these modalities are dispro-
portionate and exceed the Commission’s competences under
                                                                          Challenged        Decision    Refusal of registration by the
Article 8(4) of the Merger Control Regulation.
                                                                          before the Board of           Examiner.
                                                                          Appeal:
The applicant finally claims that the Commission has failed to
respect the applicant’s procedural rights, in that the Com-               Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
mission did not respect the applicant’s right to be heard and                                           and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.
relied on information not provided to the applicant.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
    30.12.1989 p. 1; text republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990,
    p. 13).
                                                                          Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
                                                                          Timber GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Check Point
Software Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in                                           (Case T-91/02)
                       the Internal Market
                                                                                (2002/C 156/56)
                          (Case T-89/02)
                         (2002/C 156/55)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
European Communities on 20 March 2002 by Check Point                      Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar (Germany), represented by
Software Limited, represented by Mr Graham Farrington of                  D.O. Reich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Farrington & Co Solicitors, Reading (United Kingdom).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the defendant’s First Board of
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 15 January 2002 on
      Appeal of 7 January 2002; and
                                                                                State aid granted by Germany to Klausner Nordic Timber
                                                                                GmbH & Co. KG;
—     order the defendant to remit the application to its
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community
      Trade Mark no. 1744168 (SECURECLIENT).                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-417/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2015 — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2015 — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt
   (Case C-417/15)
   (2015/C 363/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wolfgang Schmidt

      Defendant: Christiane Schmidt

      Question referred

   Does a proceeding concerning the avoidance of a contract of gift on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract and the registration of the removal of an entry evidencing the donee’s right of ownership fall within the scope of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 (1), which provides for exclusive jurisdiction over rights in rem in immovable property?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 13 May 1998 by Claudine Hamptaux against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-76/98)

text:
C 234/30             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                       with Italian legislation, and were approved by it on 7 July
                                                                   1994. In the meantime, the abovementioned doctor
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                brought an action before the courts in Italy against the
                                                                   applicant seeking an order enjoining him to pay said fees
                                                                   and expenses.
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and 71 of
the Staff Regulations and of Annex VII thereof, in
particular Articles 14b and 15, and breach of the principle        In support of his application the applicant claims that the
of equality and of the principle that all administrative           following have been breached:
decisions must be based on a lawful and relevant
statement of reasons; he maintains that no valid statement         Ð the first paragraph of Article 8 of Annex II to the Staff
of reasons was given for the contested decision.                       Regulations;
                                                                   Ð the first paragraph of Article 23(2) of the Rules on the
                                                                       Insurance of Officials of the European Communities
                                                                       against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational
                                                                       Disease;
Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
  against the Commission of the European Communities               Ð the duty of care incumbent on the Commission;
                       (Case T-75/98)
                        (98/C 234/59)                              Ð the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and
                                                                       to observe reasonable periods' under the Declaration
                                                                       of Human Rights, in view of the fact that the two
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         Committees took years to complete reach their
                                                                       findings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1998 by
Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Mauro Cimino, of the
Fermo Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-
                                                                   Action brought on 13 May 1998 by Claudine Hamptaux
Alzette.
                                                                     against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-76/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 234/60)
1. order the defendant to pay the costs of the
    proceedings, that is LIT 35 950 million, together with                        (Language of the case: French)
    the interest and legal costs accrued, as well as to
    refund the costs incurred by Dr Cognigni as a result of        An action against the Commission of the European
    participating in the Medical Committee;                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1998
2. order the defendant to make good non-material                   by Claudine Hamptaux, residing at WoluweÂ-St-Lambert
    damage caused in the amount of six times the amount            (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
    mentioned in paragraph 1 above, including interest             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    and other costs;                                               Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.
3. order the defendant to pay the costs.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Ð annul the decision, adopted on 30 January 1998 (and
                                                                       notified on 11 February 1998), expressly rejecting the
                                                                       complaint made by the applicant to the appointing
The present action seeks to obtain payment of a principal              authority on 9 October 1997 by which she contested
sum and interest thereon by way of fees and related                    the following two decisions:
expenses for the doctor appointed by the applicant to the
Invalidity Committee and to the Medical Committee in                   Ð the decision (notified to the applicant on 9 July
the procedures for assessing invalidity and recognizing                    1997 and published in Administrative Notices
occupational diseases respectively.                                        No 998 of 8 August 1997) not to include the
                                                                           applicant in the list of officials most deserving of
The applicant states in this regard that upon the                          promotion to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
conclusion of the Invalidity Committee and the Medical                     procedure;
Committee, the doctor appointed by him applied in vain
to the administration for the fees for his services. The fees          Ð the decision (published in Administrative Notices
and expenses in question were submitted to the Consiglio                   No 999 of 12 August 1997) listing the officials
dell'Ordine dei Medici (Medical Council) in accordance                     promoted to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/31
         procedure, in so far as that decision does not            The applicant claims that the Court should:
         mention the applicant's name.
                                                                   Ð Annul        and/or    declare    unlawful     Commission
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation of up to BFR                 Regulation (EC) No 644/98 of 20 March 1998 (OJ
    833 000;                                                           1998 L 87, p. 8) supplementing the Annex to
                                                                       Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of
                                                                       geographical indications and designations of origin
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
                                                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    provides for Italy, in respect of olive oil Ð in the
                                                                       context of the products intended for human
The applicant contests her omission from the list of                   consumption listed in Annex II to the Treaty under
officials most deserving of promotion in the 1997                      Oils and fats' Ð use of the Protected Geographical
promotions procedure and the refusal by the appointing                 Indication (PGI) Toscano' (Tuscan), subject to the
authority to promote her to grade B 2 in the course of                 rules laid down by the Italian State;
that procedure.
                                                                   Ð Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant advances the following pleas in law in
support of her claims:                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Article 90(2) and the first paragraph            The applicants comprise two regional associations whose
    of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, together with the       duty, according to their statutes, is to safeguard the
    decision     of   the    Commission      published     in      interests of agricultural producers in their respective
    Administrative Notices No 498 of 7 April 1986,                 provinces; a consortium which is an umbrella organisation
    inasmuch as the contested decision was signed by the           for various olive growers in the Province of Florence; and
    Member of the Commission responsible for personnel             other proprietors of agricultural holdings in that Province
    and administrative matters, whereas only the                   which produce significant quantities of extra virgin olive
    Commission as a whole or the Director-General for              oil from Tuscany. Hitherto, all the applicants have used,
    Personnel and Administration was competent to sign             as they saw fit, the designation Colli Fiorentini'
    it.                                                            (Florentine Hills) (or Colline di Firenze' (Hill Country of
                                                                   Florence) or di Firenze' (of Florence), and the like).
                                                                   Considering themselves to be adversely affected by the
Ð Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, as
                                                                   contested Regulation, in so far as it establishes toscano'
    enshrined in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations, and
                                                                   (Tuscan) as a protected geographical indication, and
    of Article 45(1) of those Regulations, inasmuch as the
                                                                   provides for the application of the related rules, which
    appointing authority failed in the present case to
                                                                   make it compulsory to adopt a single main common
    consider the comparative merits of those eligible, as
                                                                   designation for all olives from Tuscany and do not permit
    provided for therein.
                                                                   the more specific indication Colli Fiorentini' (or similar)
                                                                   to be used as appropriate. According to the applicants,
                                                                   notwithstanding the fact that Colli Fiorentini' is the only
                                                                   indication enabling a prestigious product to be effectively
                                                                   distinguished from other, more ordinary, products from
                                                                   other areas of Tuscany, it has been relegated in status to a
Action brought on 19 May 1998 by Unione Provinciale                mere indicator of a sottozona' (sub-area).
degli Agricoltori di Firenze, Azienda Agraria Fattoria
Giannozzi, Unione Pratese degli Agricoltori, Consorzio             In support of their claims, the applicants plead
Produttori dell'Olio Tipico di Oliva della Provincia di            infringement of Articles 2 and 17 of Council Regulation
Firenze, SocietaÁ Fondiaria Colline Fiesolane SRL, Azienda         (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 and Article 43 of the
Agraria Fattoria di Maiano, Azienda Agraria Tenuta                 Treaty establishing the European Communities. They
Bossi, Azienda Agraria Il Valico, Azienda Agraria Il               maintain not only that Community legislation does
        Bottaio against Commission of the European                 not recognise sub-areas' or additional geographical
                         Communities                               particulars', but also that a protected geographical
                       (Case T-78/98)                              indication' for the purposes of Article 2 of Regulation
                                                                   (EEC) No 2081/92, broken down and subdivided into
                        (98/C 234/61)
                                                                   sub-areas' or additional geographical particulars' seems
                                                                   to be a legal nonsense, given that the sub-divisions in
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     question ought really to have been recognised as genuine
                                                                   independent protected designations of origin'. In other
An action against the Commission of the European                   words, even though a product such as extra virgin olive
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  oil produced in the Florentine Hills satisfies, according to
Instance of the European Communities on 19 May 1998                the applicants, all the requirements set out in
by the Unione Provinciale degli Agricoltori di Firenze and         Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, it has
Others, represented by Vittorio Chierroni, of the Florence         been relegated Ð by means of the contested geographical
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              indication, which the related rules in fact divide in terms
Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.                       of sub-areas Ð to a mere specification within that


C 118/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-160/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/46)                                                    (2001/C 118/49)
By order of 27 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 28 September 2000 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-402/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-160/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                         European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-46/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-128/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/47)                                                    (2001/C 118/50)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 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-46/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-128/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Ireland.                                    ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)]: Johann Kappel
                                                                   v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter.
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-85/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-464/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/48)                                                    (2001/C 118/51)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 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-85/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-464/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case C-459/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)
   (Case C-459/11)
   2011/C 362/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH

      Defendant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

      Questions referred

   The following questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

               1.

               In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?

               2.

               Do reproductions effected by means of PCs constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the PCs but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?

               4.

               Does the possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of the directive abrogate the condition relating to fair compensation within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) thereof?

               5.

               Is the condition relating to fair compensation (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the directive) and the possibility thereof (see recital 36 in the preamble to the directive) abrogated where the rightholders have expressly or implicitly authorised reproduction of their works?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case T-96/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/37

         Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa)
   (Case T-96/15)
   (2015/C 127/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ines di Lelio (Rome, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Alfredo alla Scrofa’ — Community trade mark No 6 779 151

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 655/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order Ines di Lelio to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 insofar as it relates to Rule 20(2) of that regulation;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-211/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — AWWW v Eurofound (Public procurement — Community tendering procedure — Rejection of tender — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/51

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — AWWW v Eurofound
   (Case T-211/07) (1)

   (Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Rejection of tender - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2008/C 209/90)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt-Working World (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: B. Schreier, V. Wellens, lawyers, and G. Dennis, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (represented by: C. Callanan, solicitor)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the Eurofound of 17 April 2007 rejecting the applicant's tender in a community public procurement procedure for the provision of services of information and analysis on quality of work and employment, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt-Working World to pay the costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar by order of that court of 18 March 1997 in the case of A. G. R. Regeling against Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid (Case C-125/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97           I EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 166/9
            large a prize can be obtained from the gaming                     the EC Treaty and, according to the rules of national
            machines and whether the opportunity to win is                    procedural law applicable to them, the arbitrators are
            based on chance or on the player's skill ?                        not at liberty to apply those provisions of their own
                                                                              motion ?
(') [ 1994 ] ECR 1-1039 .
( 2 ) [ 1982] ECR 3415 .
                                                                         2 . Notwithstanding the rules of Netherlands procedural
                                                                              law set out in paragraphs 4.2 and 4 .4 above, should a
                                                                              Netherlands court allow a claim, which otherwise
                                                                              complies with statuatory requirements, for the
                                                                              annulment of an arbitration award on the ground that
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   the award conflicts with Article 85 of the EC Treaty, if
Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar by order of that court                       it finds that there is in fact such a conflict ?
of 18 March 1997 in the case of A. G. R. Regeling against
Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijver
                                   heid                                  3 . Notwithstanding the rules of Netherlands procedural
                          ( Case C-125 /97 )                                  law set out in paragraph 4.5 above, is the court also
                                                                              required to allow such a claim if the applicability of
                            ( 97/C 166/ 15 )
                                                                              Article 85 of the EC Treaty was outside the scope of
                                                                              the dispute in the arbitration proceedings and the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                               arbitrators therefore made no decision in regard to it ?
of the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar ( Alkmaar District
Court) of 18 March 1997, received at the Court Registry                  4 . Does Community law require the rules of Netherlands
on 26 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                     procedural law set out in paragraph 5.3 above to be
A. G. R. Regeling against Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereni                      disapplied if this is necessary in order to be able to
ging voor de Metaalnijverheid on the following question :                     examine , in proceedings for annulment of a
                                                                              subsequent arbitration award, whether an agreement
Are the requirements of Directive 80/987 (') fully satisfied                  held to be valid in an interim arbitration award with
by rules of national law which may result in a claim                          the force of res judicata may nevertheless be void
relating to pay^being met, as required by that Directive,                     because it conflicts with Article 85 of the EC Treaty ?
only if and in so far as that claim amounts, over the
period referred to in the Directive, to a sum greater than
the amount of pay which the employee received during                     5 . Alternatively, in a case such as that described in
that period but which is attributed, under national civil                     Question 4 , is it necessary to refrain from applying the
law, to a claim relating to pay which arose prior to that                     rule that, in so far as an interim arbitration award is
period ?                                                                      in the nature of a final award, annulment of that
                                                                              award may not be sought simultaneously with that of
(') OJ No L 283 , 1980 , p . 23 .                                             the subsequent arbitration award ?
                                                                         H OJ No C 77, 1996 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 21 March 1997
in the case of Eco Swiss China Time Ltd against Benetton
                          International NV                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Chamber for
                          ( Case C-126/97 )                              Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna,
                                                                         by order of that court of 2 December 1996 in the case of
                             ( 97/C 166/ 16 )                            Annalisa Carbonari and 121 other plaintiffs against
                                                                         1 . Università degli Studi di Bologna, 2 . Ministero della Sa
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   nità, 3 . Minstero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica,
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der                                            4 . Ministero del Tesoro
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                               ( Case C-131 /97 )
21 March 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
 on 27 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                                          ( 97/C 166/ 17 )
 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd and Benetton International NV
on the following questions :
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 1 . To what extent is the ruling of the Court of Justice in             European Communities by an order of the Chamber for
        Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel                 Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna
        and Van Veen v. SPF (') applicable by analogy if, in a           ( Bologna District Magistrates Court) of 2 December 1996,
        dispute concerning a private law agreement which is              which was received at the Court Registry on 1 April 1997,
        decided upon by arbitrators rather than the national             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Annalisa Carbonari
        courts, the parties make no reference to Article 85 of           and 121 other plaintiffs against 1 . Universita degli Studi di


               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/1

         (2008/C 313/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 285, 8.11.2008

      OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

      OJ C 260, 11.10.2008

      OJ C 247, 27.9.2008

      OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

      OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-66/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2008 — Extradition proceedings against Szymon Kozlowski

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2008 — Extradition proceedings against Szymon Kozlowski
   (Case C-66/08)
   (2008/C 107/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart
   Party to the main proceedings
   Szymon Kozlowski
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do the following facts preclude the assumption that a person is a ‘resident’ of or is ‘staying’ in a Member State in the sense of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1):

                           (a)

                           his stay in the Member State concerned has not been uninterrupted;

                           (b)

                           his stay there does not comply with the law on residence;

                           (c)

                           he commits crimes there systematically for financial gain; and/or

                           (d)

                           he is in custody serving a criminal sentence there?

               2.

               Is transposition of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA in such a way that the extradition of a State's own nationals against their will for the purpose of execution of sentence is always impermissible, whereas extradition of nationals of other Member States against their will can be authorised at the discretion of the authorities, compatible with Union law, in particular with the principles of non-discrimination and Union citizenship under Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union (EU) in conjunction with Articles 12 and 17 et seq. of the EC Treaty (EC) and, if so, are those principles at least to be taken into account in the exercise of that discretion?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-68/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97              fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 108/ 17
2 . What constitutes a zootechnical ground (Article 2 )?                  Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
3 . What constitutes a pedigree ground (Article 2 )?                                                          Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-71/97)
4 . Must Directive 91 /174/EEC be understood as meaning                                                ( 97/C 108/32 )
       that a Member State may, notwithstanding the
       Directive, ban the importation onto an island such as
       that described in Question 1 of Part I and the                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
        existence there of all bees other than bees belonging to          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        the species Apis mellifera mellifera }                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                          Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        If a Member State can do so under certain conditions,             address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        the Court is requested to set out those conditions .              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 85 , 5.4. 1991 , p . 37.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to designate zones considered
                                                                               to be vulnerable and by failing to notify such
                                                                               designations to the Commission, as provided for in
                                                                               Article    3   of    Council       Directive 91 /676/EEC    of
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission                            12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                  Belgium                                      agricultural sources ('), and by failing either to
                            ( Case C-68/ 97 )                                  establish or communicate to the Commission the code
                                                                               or codes of good agricultural practice provided for in
                              ( 97/C 108/31 )                                   Article 4 of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive,
 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
 on 18 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, acting                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
 Kirchberg.                                                                relied on in Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit expired on
                                                                           19 December 1993 .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
 — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
         within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
         administrative provisions necessary to comply fully
         with the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of
         14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
         Member States relating to insurance against civil
         liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles ( 1 ), and      Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
         in particular by failing to transpose into Belgian Law            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
         Article 5 thereof, or, in the alternative, by not                                                     Spain
         notifying the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of                                               ( Case C-72/97)
         Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                                           ( 97/C 108/33 )
         EC Treaty and the Directive,
  — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                            Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
  relied on in Case C-56197 (2); the time-limit expired on                  Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  31 December 1992.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   C ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990, p. 33 .
   (2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                              — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                or notify the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive


title: Case C-82/10: Action brought on 11 February 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/23

         Action brought on 11 February 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-82/10)
   2010/C 113/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that in failing to apply the European Union insurance legislation in its entirety to all insurance undertakings on a non-discriminatory basis, the Republic of Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under, in particular, Articles 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16 and 17 of Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24th July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as subsequently amended, and Articles 22 and 23 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357; and

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission is of the opinion that i) the Voluntary Health Insurance Board (hereinafter referred to as VHI) could not properly continue to benefit from an exemption under article 4 of directive 73/239/CEE with effect from the first change to its capacity by virtue of the entry into force of the Voluntary Health Insurance (Amendment) Act 1996, and ii) from this date it became fully subject to the requirements of the European Union insurance legislation, including in particular those relating to authorisation, financial supervision, establishment of technical provisions and a solvency margin including the guarantee fund.
   VHI currently continues all its operations without having obtained authorisation from the Irish Financial Regulator, nor having complied inter alia with the necessary solvency requirements.


title: Case C-303/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arios Pagos (Greece) by order of 10 July 2001 in the case of Alexandros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio (the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrotisis Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator, Ethniki Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou kai Pathitikou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Georgios I. Tsamasfiros and Others

text:
C 56/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            2.3.2002
& Excise and CSC Financial Services Ltd, on the interpretation                to comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October
of Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Council Directive                           1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the
(77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                        transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                    cates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                        facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establish-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola,                ment in national and international transport operations (OJ
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans,                    1998 L 277, p. 17) or, in any event, by not notifying
Judges, Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar:                  those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:                                   directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
                                                                              (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and
                                                                              M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Council
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December 2001, in
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
                                                                              which it:
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
—      ‘transactions in securities’ means transactions liable to create,            the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       alter or extinguish parties’ rights and obligations in respect of            comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998
       securities;                                                                  amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation
                                                                                of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator
—      ‘negotiation in securities’ does not cover services limited to               and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
       providing information about a financial product and, as                      evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these
       the case may be, receiving and processing applications for                   operators the right to freedom of establishment in national
       subscription to the relevant securities, without issuing them.               and international transport operations, the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                              2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                          13 December 2001
                                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arios Pagos
in Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         (Greece) by order of 10 July 2001 in the case of Alexan-
              ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                            dros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio
                                                                              (the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrot-
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                        isis Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator,
Directive 98/76/EC — Failure to transpose within the                          Ethniki Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou
                           prescribed period)                                 kai Pathitikou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Geor-
                                                                                gios I. Tsamasfiros and Others
                             (2002/C 56/03)
                                                                                (Case C-303/01)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
In Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communities                      European Communities by order of the Arios Pagos (Greek
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                    Supreme Court) of 10 July 2001, received at the Court Registry
J. Faltz) — application for a declaration that by failing to adopt            on 30 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 Alexandros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio
 ---pagebreak--- 2.3.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 56/3
(the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrotisis                     have conferred on taxable persons a right to opt for
Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator, Ethniki                 taxation? Which of the transactions listed in
Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou kai Pathiti-                  Article 13B(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC are involved?
kou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Georgios I. Tsamasfi-
ros and Others on the following question:
                                                                          (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
In view of the fact that Article 25 of the Second Council
Directive 77/91/EEC (1) of 13 December 1976 does not lay
down a penalty for any infringement of that article, is it
compatible with the objectives pursued by that directive for a
provision of national law to declare valid shares which have
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the
resulted from an increase, pursuant to ministerial decisions, in
                                                                          Bundesfinanzhof of 27 September 2001 in the case of
the share capital of public limited companies where the
                                                                          KapHag Renditefonds, 35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf,
increase is invalid as contrary to Article 25 of the directive,
                                                                               3. Tranche GbR against Finanzamt Charlottenburg
provided that the provision confers, in return, a right against
the State to full compensation for any harm which the pre-
existing shareholders of those public limited companies have                                       (Case C-442/01)
suffered as a consequence of the increase. In particular, may
that right to full compensation be regarded, in view inter alia                                     (2002/C 56/06)
of the long time which has since passed and the successive
increases which have followed (by decisions of the general
meeting), as equivalent, under Community law, to recognition              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
that the shares which have resulted from the invalid increase             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
in the share capital are invalid?                                         (Federal Finance Court) of 27 September 2001, which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2001, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of KapHag Renditefonds,
(1) OJ L 26 of 31.1.1977, p. 1.                                           35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf, 3. Tranche GbR v Finanzamt
                                                                          Charlottenburg on the following questions:
                                                                          1.    Where a partnership assumes a partner on payment of a
                                                                                capital contribution in cash, does it effect a supply to him
                                                                                for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
                                                                                Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)
                                                                          2.    If so, is it an incidental transaction for the purposes of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                         Article 19(2), sentence 2, of Directive 77/388/EEC, and is
hof by order of that court of 17 May 2001 in the case                           the taxable person entitled to rely on Article 19(2),
of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau against MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-                             sentence 2, of Directive 77/388/EEC, according to which
                         Factoring GmbH                                         such incidental transactions do not exclude a deduction?
                          (Case C-305/01)                                 (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
                           (2002/C 56/05)
                                                                          Action brought on 3 December 2001 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                                                lic of Germany
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 May 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 3 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                                             (Case C-463/01)
the case of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau v MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-
Factoring GmbH on the following questions:                                                          (2002/C 56/07)
1.    Can a factoring company which buys debts and assumes
      liability for the risk of loss in relation to those debts be        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      said to be using goods and services received by it for the          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      purposes of its transactions?                                       ties on 3 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser
2.    Do such activities involve taxable transactions or trans-           in the Commission of the European Communities, with an
      actions (they involve the latter in any event) for the              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
      purposes of Article 13B(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1)              Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
      which may be taxed to the extent that the Member States             Kirchberg.


title: Case T-910/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Hesse v EUIPO — Wedl & Hofmann (TESTA ROSSA)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/44

         Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Hesse v EUIPO — Wedl & Hofmann (TESTA ROSSA)
   (Case T-910/16)
   (2017/C 053/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TESTA ROSSA’ –EU trade mark No 7 070 519

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 68/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and also declare EU trade mark No 7 070 519 revoked in respect of the following goods:
               Class 21 — Household and kitchen containers; Glassware, Porcelain, in particular tableware; Glass beverage ware;
               Class 25 — Clothing, namely aprons, shirts, polo shirts and t-shirts; Headgear;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-237/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Roubaix by judgment of that court of 15 May 2003 in the case of Banque Sofinco SA against Daniel and Carole Djemoui

text:
C 184/22               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         2.8.2003
Is it contrary to Articles 12, 43 et seq. and 49 et seq. of the EC       Pleas in law and main arguments
Treaty, and Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts, to include in the general             The Commission submits that the CFI'S ruling contains
specifications and special administrative clauses and technical          numerous contradictions and inconsistencies, not to say distor-
specifications governing public competitions relating to home            tions and that, accordingly, the contested judgment would
respiratory treatments and other assisted breathing techniques:          render the division of offenders into groups, which is a key
                                                                         element of the Guidelines, unworkable. The Commission main-
                                                                         tains that it followed an approach which is both entirely
1)    the requirement that, in order to qualify to tender, under-        reasonable and wholly consonant with the principle of non-
      takings must already have offices open to the public in            discrimination.
      the province or capital of the province in which the
      service is to be provided;
                                                                         In the Commission's submission, the CFI has erred in finding
2)    award criteria which favour:                                       that the Decision contained inadequate reasoning and has, in
                                                                         any event, exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction.
      a)    tenders from undertakings established within a
            1 000 Km radius of the capital in which the service          According to the Commission the contested ruling would
            is to be provided;                                           severely fetter the Commission's discretion when setting fines,
                                                                         and would be virtually tantamount to imposing on the
      b)    undertakings which already have offices open to the          Commission a duty to apply a mathematical or ‘scientifically’
            public in certain towns in that province; or                 verifiable formula. This would seriously undermine the
                                                                         Commission's discretion, and thus its power and duty to
      c)    undertakings which have been providing the service           pursue infringements of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.
            previously?
                                                                         Finally the Commission contests the CFI's finding that the
(1) OJ L 209 of 18.06.1992, p. 1.                                        imposition of fines was time-barred and maintains that such
                                                                         finding is unsustained by any reasoning in the judgment.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 124, 24.05.2003, p. 18.
Appeal brought on 2 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
19 March 2003 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in case T-213/
00 (1) between CMA CGM and thirteen other liner ship-
ping companies and the Commission of the European
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                            Communities
                                                                         d'Instance de Roubaix by judgment of that court of
                                                                         15 May 2003 in the case of Banque Sofinco SA against
                        (Case C-236/03 P)                                                   Daniel and Carole Djemoui
                          (2003/C 184/39)
                                                                                (Case C-237/03)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March 2003                                         (2003/C 184/40)
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-213/00 between CMA CGM
and thirteen other liner shipping companies and the Commis-
sion of the European Communities was brought before the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 June 2003              European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d'instance
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented               (District Court), Roubaix of 15 May 2003 received at the
by P. Oliver, acting as agent, with an address for service in            Court Registry on 4 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
Luxembourg.                                                              the case of Banque Sofinco SA against Daniel and Carole
                                                                         Djemoui on the following questions:
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Must Council Directives 87/102/EC (1) of 22 December
—     annul point 1 of the judgment of the Court of First                      1986 and 90/88/EC (2) of 22 February 1990 be inter-
      Instance of 19 March 2003 in Case T-213/00 (CMA                          preted as requiring the national court to favour the
      CGM v. Commission);                                                      interpretation of national law obliging consumer credit
                                                                               institutions to inform the borrower/consumer in writing
—     reject the Respondents' Application in its entirety;                     of the current annual percentage rate of charge, before
                                                                               each renewal of a credit agreement renewable in instal-
—     order the Respondents to pay the Commission's costs.                     ments in which the interest is stipulated to be variable?
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 184/23
       Must those directives be interpreted as requiring the               by G. Valero Jordana and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with
       national court to favour the interpretation of national law         an address for service in Luxembourg.
       obliging consumer credit institutions to bring to the atten-
       tion of the consumer the clause concerning the variation
       in that annual percentage rate of charge before each                The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
       renewal of the agreement?                                           Court should:
2.     Must those directives be interpreted as designed solely to
                                                                           —     find that, by failing to take all appropriate measures to
       protect the consumer or, beyond that, to organise the
                                                                                prevent, abate and combat the substantial and prolonged
       single market in consumer credit?
                                                                                pollution of the Étang de Berre and by failing to take due
                                                                                account of the provisions of Annex III to the Athens
       Does the requirement of an interpretation in conformity                   Protocol of 17 May 1980 for the Protection of the
       with the aims — at the very least those of protecting the                 Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based
       consumer — of those directives mean that the court may                    Sources (1) by amending the authorisation for discharges
       raise of its own motion defects in credit agreements, such                of the substances referred to in Annex II to the Protocol
       as the failure to include a written statement of the annual               in consequence of its conclusion, the French Republic has
       percentage rate of charge or the clause providing for its                 failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and (3) of
       variation?                                                                the Protocol and Articles 4(1) and 8 of the Barcelona
                                                                                Convention of 16 February 1976 for the Protection of the
3.     Must those directives be interpreted as meaning that the                  Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (2), approved on
       court is required to favour the interpretation of national                behalf of the Community by Council Decisions 77/585/
       law authorising it to uphold pleas of irregularity vitiating              EEC (3) and 83/101/EEC (4) on 25 July 1977 and
       the conclusion or renewal of a consumer credit agree-                     28 February 1983, and Article 300(7) (formerly
       ment, such as those described above, raised by the                        Article 228) of the Treaty establishing the European
       consumer or of the court's own motion, without any                        Community;
       time-limit, in a dispute arising out of an action for
       payment brought by the credit institution?                          —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
       If not, must those directives be interpreted as meaning
       that the court is required to favour the interpretation of
       national law authorising it to set aside a national provi-
       sion prohibiting the consumer or the court of its own
       motion from raising a plea of irregularity affecting the
       conclusion or renewal of a consumer credit agreement, at            Pleas in law and main arguments
       the end of a time-limit derogating from the ordinary law,
       inasmuch as it constitutes an exceptional restriction of the
       consumer's right to bring an action and compromises the             Under Article 3(c) of the Athens Protocol, the area to which
       effectiveness of consumer protection?                               the Protocol applies includes saltwater marshes communicating
                                                                           with the sea, of which the Étang de Berre is one. It therefore
                                                                           follows from Article 6(1) of the Protocol that the French
(1) Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation         Republic must reduce direct and indirect discharges of
    of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the          substances into that lake when those discharges give rise to
    Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48).        harmful effects, and must prevent and combat those
(2) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending Direc-        discharges. That involves an obligation as to the result to be
    tive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                           achieved.
    administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
    consumer credit (OJ 1990 L 61, p. 14).
                                                                           The abatement of direct and indirect discharges of substances
                                                                           into the Étang de Berre must be stringent. That stringency
                                                                           requires a sizeable and lasting reduction in the quantity of
                                                                           substances discharged, with a major and lasting positive effect
                                                                           on the environment, and also applies to the method which the
                                                                           State uses to arrive at that result. However, the French
                                                                           Republic has not abated the pollution from land-based sources
Action brought on 4 June 2003 by the Commission of the                     in the Étang de Berre in accordance with its obligations under
     European Communities against the French Republic                      Article 6(1) of the Protocol, in conjunction with Articles 4(1)
                                                                           and 8 of the Barcelona Convention of 16 February 1976 for
                                                                           the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution. Since
                           (Case C-239/03)                                 1983, as the result of the operation of the hydroelectric power
                                                                           station at Saint-Chamas, the lake has suffered substantial and
                           (2003/C 184/41)                                 prolonged point-source land-based pollution, with considerable
                                                                           negative effects on flora, fauna and amenities. While it is true
                                                                           that there has been abatement of the pollution, the reduction
                                                                           in discharges has been belated, erratic and, above all, extremely
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               limited. Finally, the measures taken by the public authorities
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June 2003                for the purpose of long-term pollution abatement in the Étang
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                 de Berre have been limited in scope.