title: Case C-425/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Administrative (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) by judgment of that Court of 21 November 2002 in the appeal brought by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye, against the Minister for Public Service and Administrative Reform

text:
25.1.2003              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 19/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities          Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
necessary for incorporating Directive 1999/31/EC into dom-               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
estic law so that such process is complete within the time limit         period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
laid down, irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and            expired on 1 January 1990 without the United Kingdom of
to inform the Commission thereof.                                        Great Britain and Northern Ireland having enacted the pro-
                                                                         visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                         the conclusions of the Commission.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom              (1 ) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 23.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 42, 12.02.1987, p. 43.
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.
( 1) OJ L 182, 16.07.1999, p. 1.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
                                                                         trative (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) by judgment of
                                                                         that Court of 21 November 2002 in the appeal brought
                                                                         by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye, against the Minister
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Com-                                   for Public Service and Administrative Reform
mission of the European Communities against the United
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                (Case C-425/02)
                         (Case C-424/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/34)
                          (2003/C 19/33)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                European Communities by order of the Cour Administrative
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of              (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) (Administrative Court, Grand
the European Communities on 22 November 2002 by the                      Duchy of Luxembourg) of 21 November 2002, received at the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   Court Registry on 25 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling
X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an                in the appeal brought by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye,
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       against the Minister for Public Service and Administrative
                                                                         Reform on the following question:
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Having regard to the provisions of Directives 77/187/EEC (1),
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             98/50/EC (2) and 2001/23/EC (3) identified herein, in the event
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with              of the transfer of an undertaking from a non-profit-making
      Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC requiring             association, which is a legal person under private law, to the
      Member States to take the measures necessary to give               State as transferee, is it permissible for the transferor’s rights
      priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration (1),      and obligations to be taken over only in so far as they are
      as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC on waste oils ( 2) or,          compatible with the State’s own rules of public law, in
      in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the          particular in the area of remuneration, where the detailed
      Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                provisions and amounts of compensation are laid down by
      Northern Ireland has failed to fully fulfil its obligations        grand ducal regulation, bearing in mind that the status of
      under that Directive;                                              public-sector employee confers legal benefits in the areas of,
                                                                         inter alia, career development and job stability on the staff
2)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             concerned, and that, in the event of disagreement as regards
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                          ‘substantial changes’ to the employment relationship within
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/20                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
the meaning of Article 4(2) of those Directives, the staff                         cations, annul the decision of the Court of Auditors in
concerned retain the right to request termination of that                          that respect and adopt any appropriate consequent
relationship according to the detailed rules in the relevant                       measure;
provisions?
                                                                             —     acquire the documents submitted by the end of the period
( 1) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
                                                                                prescribed by the notice confirming the claims made
     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the                relating to whether Mr. Hervé meets all the requirements;
     safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61 of
     05.03.1977, p. 26).                                                     —     in any event, find that the requirements do not comply
( 2) Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive                 with the requirements objectively discernable from the
     77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member                     competition notice, annul Mr Hervé’s appointment and
     States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the               adopt any appropriate consequent measure;
     event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
     (OJ L 201 of 17.07.1998, p. 88).
( 3) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approxi-           —     in the event that the applicant’s is the only candidature
     mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                                suited to the post and meeting the requirements to have
     safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses               been put forward for appointment as Secretary General
     (OJ L 82 of 22.03.2001, p. 16).                                               of the Court of Auditors, declare that Mr Di Pietro is
                                                                                entitled to be appointed Secretary General, in view of the
                                                                                fact that the notice did not reserve a discretion to the
                                                                                Court regarding the appointment of those candidates
                                                                                deemed suitable;
                                                                             —     order the reimbursement of the costs and fees disbursed
                                                                                by the applicant and compensation for the damage
                                                                                suffered as a result of not being appointed to the post.
Appeal brought on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di
Pietro against the order delivered on 27 September 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-254/01 between
Giuseppe Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European
                              Communities                                    Pleas and main arguments
                           (Case C-427/02 P)
                                                                             The applicant challenges the fact that the Court of First
                                                                             Instance declared his application manifestly inadmissible and
                             (2003/C 19/35)                                  upheld the objection of the Court of Auditors that his
                                                                             statement of 2 August 2001 cannot be deemed to be a
                                                                             complaint.
An appeal against the order delivered on 27 September 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                   According to the Court of First Instance, in his letter of
European Communities in Case T-254/01 between Giuseppe                       2 August 200 the applicant does not challenge the legality of
Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European Communities                  the decision which adversely affects him nor does it seek any
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      means of settling the dispute out of court. Instead, it merely
Communities on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di Pietro,                       sets out a number of questions and requires the production of
represented by Giuseppe Monforte, whose chambers are in                      a number of documents. Therefore the aforementioned letter
Messina.                                                                     cannot be deemed a complaint within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             The applicant argues that the Court of First Instance is wrong
—      acquire the documents relating to the candidates admitted
                                                                             in that his statement of 2 August 2001 contains a request that
       to the examination;
                                                                             action be taken.
—      find that the documents do not comply with the require-
       ments objectively discernable from the competition
       notice, declare inadmissible the non-complying appli-


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 11 July 1996 in Case C-397/95 P: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Official - Res judicata - Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
No C 294/2              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5 . 10 . 96
      the field of technical standards and regulations, as               11 July 1996 by the Italian Republic, represented by Prof.
      amended by Council Directive 88/1 82/EEC of                        Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Maurizio
      22 March 1 988, is not applicable to national rules on the         Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
      closing times of shops such as those at issue in the main          Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue
      proceedings.                                                       Marie-Adelaide .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
      OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
      OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should : annul
                                                                         Commission Decision 96/311 /EC of 10 April 1996 to the
                                                                         extent to which, in clearing the accounts submitted by the
                                                                         Italian Republic for expenditure for 1992 , it declares that
                                                                         the total sum of Lit 108 850 076 808 is not chargeable to
                                                                         the EAGGF .
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
               (Third Chamber ) of 11 July 1996
in Case C-397/95 P: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of                  Main pleas in law and arguments adduced in support
                 the European Communities ( ! )
(Appeal — Official — Res judicata — Appeal clearly                       — Public storage of beef and veal; special inquiries finding
                                unfounded)                                    ( a ) inadequacy of controls and ( b ) purchase of
                             ( 96/C 294/02 )                                 non-permitted goods : Lit 54 927 174 194
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             The Italian Republic contests the fixed-rate reduction of
                                                                              10 % and in any event maintains that the discretionary
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 power to make a fixed-rate adjustment was exercised in
           published in the European Court Reports)                           breach of the rules of conduct laid down in part C of
                                                                              Annex 2 to the Guidelines ( Doc . VI/216/93-F.R. of
In Case C-397/95 P: Dimitrios Coussios ( represented by                       2 June 1993 ). If the discretionary power to determine a
Georgios Sakellaropoulos ) — appeal against the order of the                  fixed-rate amendment had been exercised fairly, the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                           figure arrived at would have been 5 % .
( Fourth Chamber ) of 11 October 1995 in Case T-302/94
Coussios v. Commission ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-723 , seeking to
have that order set aside , the other party to the proceedings           — Public storage of beef and veal , irregular auction
being the Commission of the European Communities                              procedures for the sale of intervention meat: Lit
( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira , assisted by Denis                           7 104 000 000
Waelbroeck ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of:
J. - P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida and C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D.                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 expressly prohibits the
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                              submision of more than one tender for the contract for
Registrar, has made the following order on 11 July                            public storage by any one person . The AIMA has always
 1996 :                                                                       observed that provision and the tenders received were
                                                                              found to have been submitted by companies with
 1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                                 different identities and names . It is normal practice in
                                                                              Italy for producers' associations to undertake on behalf
                                                                              of their members all dealings with public bodies ( AIMA,
2 . Mr Coussios is ordered to pay the costs of the present                    foreign trade, Ministry of Finance, etc .). Those
       proceedings.                                                           procedures do not detract from the secrecy of the tenders
                                                                              and do not provide a means of etablishing a syndicate . In
 (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                              other words, the association merely acts as a
                                                                               'postman'.
                                                                         — Inadequate administration and control of premiums for
                                                                               sheep and goats : Lit 34 175 522 595
Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Italian Republic
    against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case C-242/96                                     The Italian Republic, without examining the merits of
                                                                               each case, states that in most of the cases covered by the
                              ( 96/C 294/03 )                                  inspection, the discrepancies are attributable to
                                                                               insufficient training of the staff assigned to the checks
 An action against the Commission of the European                              and lack of familiarity with the rules . The regions have
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on                        given an assurance that they are prepared to give the


title: Case C-411/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Koblenz by order of that Court of 16 September 2003 in the matter concerning the companies register relating to SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft

text:
29.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/13
3.    If either of the previous two questions is answered in the         also prevented from evaluating the measures taken by Ireland
      affirmative, does Community law preclude a legal costs             as part of its overall evaluation with a view to proposing,
      scheme such as that in issue, under which, in principle,           as appropriate, Community measures regarding minimum
      only a limited contribution is made towards legal costs            qualification requirements.
      where a citizen is successful in proceedings brought
      before the national courts for breach of Community law
      by a Member State?
                                                                         With regard to Article 17(2) of the Regulation, the Commission
                                                                         considers that Ireland has equally failed in its obligations. It
                                                                         has not defined the minimum qualification requirements
                                                                         for personnel involved in taking all precautionary measures
                                                                         practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
                                                                         bromide from fumigation installations and operations in which
                                                                         methyl bromide is used. Nor, for that matter, does the
                                                                         Commission have any information indicating that Ireland has
Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Com-                          taken the necessary precautionary measures.
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                         (1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.
                          (Case C-406/03)
                         (2003/C 289/25)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by U. Wölker and M. Shotter, acting as agents, with an address           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
for service in Luxembourg.                                               Koblenz by order of that Court of 16 September 2003 in
                                                                         the matter concerning the companies register relating to
                                                                                SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to provide the reports referred to                                 (Case C-411/03)
      in Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC)
      No. 2037/2000 (1) on substances that deplete the ozone
      layer, and by failing, in accordance with Article 17(2) of                                  (2003/C 289/26)
      the said Regulation, to take all precautionary measures
      practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
      bromide and to define the minimum qualification require-
      ments for the personnel involved, Ireland has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Articles 16(5), 16(6), 17(1)
      and 17(2) of the said Regulation;                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Landgericht Koblenz
                                                                         (Regional Court, Koblenz) of 16 September 2003, received at
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         the Court Registry on 2 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the matter concerning the companies register relating to
                                                                         SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft on the following question:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it
The Commission did not, by the required date of 31 December              is contrary to freedom of establishment for companies if a
                                                                         foreign European company is refused registration of its
2001, receive from Ireland information on the quantities of
                                                                         proposed merger with a German company in the German
ozone depleting substances recovered, reclaimed, recycled and
destroyed. Nor did it receive by that date any of the other              register of companies under paragraphs 16 et seq. of the
detailed information required to be reported to it by virtue of          Umwandlungsgesetz (Law on transformations), on the ground
                                                                         that paragraph 1 (1)(1) of that law provides only for transform-
Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of the Regulation. In the
absence of this information, the Commission is concerned that            ation of legal entities established in Germany?
Ireland’s efforts to curb ozone depleting substances may fall
short of what is required by the Regulation, as the Commission
has been deprived of a means of verifying compliance. It is


title: Case F-117/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — AD v Commission (Civil service — Lateness — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — AD v Commission
   (Case F-117/12)
   (Civil service - Lateness - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 46/66
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AD (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision not to grant diplomatic status to the applicant’s partner and the decision not to pay certain travel costs for that partner, and a claim for damages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               AD shall bear his own costs.


title: Case T-677/15: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission (Action for annulment — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/47

         Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission
   (Case T-677/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 335/62)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment (i) of the letter from the Director of Directorate B ‘Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements’ of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance dated 21 September 2015 concerning recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 83 764,34 and enclosing the related debit note of 18 September 2015 and (ii) of the letter from the Secretary General of the Parliament of 27 July 2012 informing the applicant of the findings of an investigation into the use of his parliamentary allowances.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the letter from the Director of Directorate B ‘Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements’ of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance dated 21 September 2015 and against Debit Note No 2015-1320 of 18 September 2015.

               2.

               For the rest, the action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               3.

               Mr Pier Antonio Panzeri shall pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The Parliament shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-26/09: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 5 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — The Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Helphire (UK) Limited, Angel Assistance Limited

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/22

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 5 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — The Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Helphire (UK) Limited, Angel Assistance Limited
   (Case C-26/09) (1)

   2010/C 148/36

      Language of the case: English.

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

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009


title: Case T-509/13: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2014  — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/65

         Order of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)
   (Case T-509/13) (1)

   2014/C 409/86
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-458/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Wilfer v OHIM (Representation of the head of a guitar) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing the head of a guitar in silver, grey and brown — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — The first sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Equal treatment)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Wilfer v OHIM (Representation of the head of a guitar)
      (Case T-458/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing the head of a guitar in silver, grey and brown - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - The first sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Equal treatment)
      (2010/C 288/67)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Hans-Peter Wilfer (Markeneukirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2008 (Case R 78/2007-4), concerning the registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign representing the head of a guitar in the colours silver, grey and brown.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Hans-Peter Wilfer to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2008.


title: Case T-41/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2007 — MCC v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2007 — MCC v Commission
   (Case T-41/02) (1)

   (2007/C 82/112)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Fourth Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.


title: Case C-51/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 — Barbara Becker v Harman International Industries, Inc., Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word mark Barbara Becker — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word marks BECKER and BECKER ONLINE PRO — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 — Barbara Becker v Harman International Industries, Inc., Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-51/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word mark Barbara Becker - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word marks BECKER and BECKER ONLINE PRO - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs)
   2010/C 221/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Barbara Becker (represented by: P. Baronikians, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Harman International Industries, Inc. (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 2 December 2008 in Case T-212/07 Harman International Industries v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker), in which the Court of First Instance annulled Decision R 502/2006-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 March 2007 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision refusing the registration of the word mark ‘Barbara Becker’ for goods in Class 9 in opposition proceedings brought by Harman International Industries, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 2 December 2008 in Case T-212/07 Harman International Industries v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case C-574/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal EPE, Serviço de Utilização Comum dos Hospitais (SUCH) v Eurest Portugal — Sociedade Europeia de Restaurantes Lda (Request for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Award of the contract without a procurement procedure (in-house award) — Contractor legally separate from the awarding authority — Centre for hospital assistance and support services — Non-profit association operating in the public interest — Majority of the partners made up of awarding authorities — Minority of the partners made up of entities under private law, non-profit charitable associations — Activity carried out of at least 80 % of the annual turnover for the partners’ benefit)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal EPE, Serviço de Utilização Comum dos Hospitais (SUCH) v Eurest Portugal — Sociedade Europeia de Restaurantes Lda
   (Case C-574/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Award of the contract without a procurement procedure (in-house award) - Contractor legally separate from the awarding authority - Centre for hospital assistance and support services - Non-profit association operating in the public interest - Majority of the partners made up of awarding authorities - Minority of the partners made up of entities under private law, non-profit charitable associations - Activity carried out of at least 80 % of the annual turnover for the partners’ benefit))
   2014/C 282/10
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal EPE, Serviço de Utilização Comum dos Hospitais (SUCH)

      Defendant: Eurest Portugal — Sociedade Europeia de Restaurantes Lda

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where the contractor under a public contract is a non-profit association which, at the time of the award of the contract, has as partners not only public sector entities but also private social solidarity institutions carrying out non-profit activities, the requirement for ‘similar control’, established by the case-law of the Court in order that the award of a public contract may be regarded as an in-house operation, is not met, so that Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts applies.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-46/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen
   (Case C-46/17)
   (2017/C 144/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hubertus John

      Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is attached as an Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age?

               2.

               If the Court answers the Question 1 in the affirmative:
               Does the incompatibility of the national legislation referred to Question 1 with clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement also apply when the termination is postponed for the first time?

               3.

               Are Articles 1, 2(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC) and/or the general principles of Community law to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-65/04: Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/20

         Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
   (Case C-65/04)
   (2004/C 94/43)
   An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström van Lier, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3) of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency because of the lack of prior information of the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency, in connection with the local emergency plan existing in Gibraltar; and

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Article 5(3) of the Directive, concerning the prior information of the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency, requires that the relevant information be communicated to this population without any request being made.
   The circumstances that gave rise to the Commission's inquires (repair operations of the nuclear submarine ‘Tireless’) highlighted that no prior information had been communicated in the past to the Gibraltar population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency. The mere public availability of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme (GIBPUBSAFE) in the public library cannot be considered to meet the requirements of Article 5(3) of the Directive, which requires active communication of such information.

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 357, p. 31


title: Case C-19/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht München by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Hamburg e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG

text:
22.3.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 70/7
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of                   1.    Is the first sentence of Article 5 of Regulation 1103/97 (1)
            4 March 1999                                                      to be understood as meaning that, in a private-law
                                                                              contractual relationship, only the final amount of the
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of                         invoice, or an individual amount detailed on the invoice,
            4 March 1999                                                      may or must be rounded, or does a contractually agreed
                                                                              unit price/tariff (in this case a price per minute) constitute
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of                         a monetary amount to be paid or accounted for within
            4 March 1999                                                      the meaning of that provision? In determining whether a
                                                                              tariff is a monetary amount to be paid or accounted for
      in the alternative, reduce the amount of subsidy to repay               within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation 1103/97,
      to the Commission to a lesser amount as may be decided                  is it decisive whether the tariff relates to a particular
      in the course of proceedings;                                           multiple (in this case six) of a unit on the basis of which
                                                                              the final amount of the invoice is ascertained (in this case
2.    as a measure of inquiry, allow the claims submitted in the              a ten-second unit), or whether it is the tariff as perceived
      present proceedings;                                                    by consumers that represents the relevant amount of the
                                                                              invoice?
3.    in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        2.    Is Regulation 1103/97(and in particular Article 5) to be
                                                                              understood as constituting an exhaustive rule whereby
                                                                              sums other than monetary amounts to be paid or
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              accounted for (if any) may not be rounded in the manner
                                                                              described in Article 5, in other words, must they either
The judgment of the Court of First Instance rejected all the                  continue to be displayed in the former national currency,
pleas in law submitted by the appellants and thus dismissed                   or be quoted in the exact amount produced on conver-
the applications in their entirety. As regards the first plea in              sion?
law, the appellant undertakings share the view the Court of
First Instance in its reasoning from the legal point of view.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 162 of 19.06.1997, p. 1.
On the other hand, the appellants argue that so far as the
remaining pleas are concerned, the Court of First Instance has
not made clear the reasons for its own view, nor does it
even demonstrate that the Commission’s decisions were well
founded: it merely repeated the arguments used in the
contested decisions.                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                        eerste Aanleg, Bruges by order of that Court of 17 January
                                                                        2003 in the criminal matters brought by the Public
According to the appellants, the judgment of the Court of First         Prosecutor against 1. Marcel Burmanjer, 2. René Alexan-
Instance is vitiated by the inadequacy, inconsistency and                        der van der Linden, and 3. Anthony de Jong
contradictions of the grounds.
                                                                                (Case C-20/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/12)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
München by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van eerste
the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Hamburg
                                                                        Aanleg (Court of First Instance), Bruges of 17 January 2003,
          e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2003, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the criminal matters brought by the
                          (Case C-19/03)                                Public Prosecutor against 1. Marcel Burmanjer, 2. René Alex-
                                                                        ander van der Linden, and 3. Anthony de Jong on the following
                          (2003/C 70/11)                                questions:
                                                                        (a)   Because the interests sought to be protected by the
                                                                              legislature could be safeguarded by other less stringent
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        means, are Articles 30 to 37 (free movement of goods) of
European Communities by order of the Landgericht München                      the EC Treaty, as applicable on 6 September 2001,
(Regional Court, Munich) of 17 December 2002, received at                     Article 48 et seq. of that Treaty (freedom of movement
the Court Registry on 20 January 2003, for a preliminary                      for persons), or Article 59 et seq. thereof (freedom to
ruling in the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Ham-                   provide services), infringed by Articles 2, 3, 5(3) and 13
burg e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG on the                              of the Belgian law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise of
following questions:                                                          itinerant activities and the organisation of public markets,


title: Case C-475/04: Action brought on 10 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/10

         Action brought on 10 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-475/04)
   (2004/C 314/21)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Michael Shotter, Members of the Commission's Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 31 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 201 of 31.7.2002, p. 37.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-233/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Palermo): Riunione Adriatica di Securtà SpA (RAS) v Dario Lo Bue (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC — Freedom to set premium rates — Possibility of relying on a directive against an individual)

text:
C 323/24                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann                   A directive may not, of itself, impose obligations on a private
and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  individual and may not therefore be relied on as such against such a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in                        person.
which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,       (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 October 2002
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                   in Case C-273/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Tribunale di Bari): Walter Ferro v Giovanni Santoro (1)
                          of 24 October 2002
in Case C-233/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Council
the Giudice di pace di Palermo): Riunione Adriatica di                        Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
             Securtà SpA (RAS) v Dario Lo Bue (1)                             nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
                                                                                employed commercial agents — Applicability to brokers)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directives 73/
239/EEC and 92/49/EEC — Freedom to set premium rates                                                    (2002/C 323/34)
— Possibility of relying on a directive against an individual)
                             (2002/C 323/33)                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-233/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    In Case C-273/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Giudice di pace di Palermo (Italy) for a preliminary                EC from the Triunale di Bari (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                   the proceedings pending before that court between Walter
Riunione Adriatica di Securtà SpA (RAS) and Dario Lo Bue, on                  Ferro and Giovanni Santoro — on the interpretation of
the interpretation of Article 8(3) of the First Council Directive             Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws,                       coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the                     employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — the
taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other               Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), in its version                     President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
resulting from Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992                    M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                   General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order in which it has
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance             ruled:
and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third
non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1), and of
Articles 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49, the Court (Third                       The provisions of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                     1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                     to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, after                that they do not apply to national legislation which makes the
informing the national court that the Court proposes to give                  entitlement of brokers to remuneration conditional upon the name of
its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of its              the broker being entered in a register established for that purpose.
Rules of Procedure, after inviting the interested parties referred
to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
submit any observations they might have in that regard, has
made an order on 24 October 2002, the operative part of
which is as follows:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 9 February 1995, in the case of Regina against Secretary of State for the Environment, ex-parte: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Case C-44/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95          lEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 101 /3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
by judgment of that court of 10 February 1995 in the case of             order of that court of 9 February 1995 , in the case of Regina
          Belgian State against Ghent Coal Terminal                      against Secretary of State for the Environment, ex-parte:
                           ( Case C-37/95 )                                          Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
                             ( 95/C 101 /05 )                                                       ( Case C-44/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/07)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hof van                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Cassatie ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 10 February                 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       of 9 February 1995 , which was received at the Court
16 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               Registry on 24 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
Belgian State against Ghent Coal Terminal on the following               the case of Regina against Secretary of State for the
question:
                                                                         Environment, ex-parte : Royal Society for the Protection of
                                                                         Birds, on the following questions :
Does Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May                 1,    is a Member State entitled to take account of the
1 977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                    considerations mentioned in Article 2 of Council
relating to turnover taxes ( a ) mean that the right to deduct                 Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
remains in existence for value added tax on investments                        conservation of wild birds ( a ) in classification of an area
which were originally intended for use in the undertaking                      as a Special Protection Area and/or in defining the
but were never in fact put into use by the undertaking ?                       boundaries of such an area pursuant to Article 4 ( 1 )
                                                                               and/or 4 ( 2 ) of that Directive ?
f 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                         2 . If the answer to question 1 is 'no', may a Member State
                                                                               nevertheless take account of Article 2 considerations in
                                                                               the classification process in so far as:
                                                                               (a ) they amount to a general interest which is superior
                                                                                to the general interest which is repersented by the
                                                                                ecological objective of the Directive ( i.e. the test
                                                                                which the European Court has laid down in e.g.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                          Commission v. Germany ('Leybucht Dykes') Case
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 30 January                               57/89 for derogation from the requirements of
        1995 in the case of Siemens AG v. Henry Nold                                 Article 4 (4 )); or
                           ( Case C-42/95 )
                             ( 95/C 101/06 )                                   ( b ) they amount to imperative reasons of overriding
                                                                                public interest such as might be taken into account
                                                                                under Article 6 (4 ) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
                                                                                of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( 2 ).
European Communities by an order of the Second Civil
Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court ofJustice ) of
30 January 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry               t 1 ) OJ No L 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979 , p . 1 .
on 23 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of            ( 2 ) OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 7.
Siemens AG v. Henry Nold, on the following question:
Is it compatible with the Second Council Directive of
13 December 1976 i 1 ), in particular Article 29 ( 1 ) and (4 )
thereof, for the legality of a resolution of a general meeting
of shareholders relating to an increase in capital in return for         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
contributions in kind while at the same withdrawing the                  Travail de Tournai (Fourth Chamber) by judgment of that
shareholders ' right of pre-emption to be determined on the              court of 14 February 1995 in the case of Institut National
basis of a substantive review in accordance with the                     d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants
principles laid down in the Bundesgerichtshof's judgments                                      against Hans Kemmler
BGHZ 71 , 40 and BGHZ 83 , 319 ?
                                                                                Case C-53/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/08 )
(!) OJ No L 26 , 31 . 1 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                         Travail de Tournai ( Labour Court, Tournai, Belgium)


title: Case C-340/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/3

         Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-340/06)
   (2006/C 249/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (1), or by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 14 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 41, pp. 26-32


title: Case T-293/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2008 — NBC Fourth Realty v OHMI — Regalado Pareja and Pedrol (PK MAX)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/63

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2008 — NBC Fourth Realty v OHMI — Regalado Pareja and Pedrol (PK MAX)
   (Case T-293/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/118)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case T-275/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 November 2008 — Omya v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 November 2008 — Omya v Commission
   (Case T-275/06) (1)

   (2008/C 327/75)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-805/14: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Stagecoach Group v EUIPO (MEGABUS.COM) (European Union trade mark — Application for a European Union word mark MEGABUS.COM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/39

         Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Stagecoach Group v EUIPO (MEGABUS.COM)
   (Case T-805/14) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for a European Union word mark MEGABUS.COM - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 260/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stagecoach Group plc (Perth, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Jacobs, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1894/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MEGABUS.COM as a European Union trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Stagecoach Group plc shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2002 in Case T-98/00: Linde AG v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Definition — Advantage — Normal commercial transaction — Rational operator in a market economy)

text:
C 323/30                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       21.12.2002
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 17 October 2002                                                           of 9 October 2002
                                                                          in Case T-173/00: KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonis-
in Case T-98/00: Linde AG v Commission of the European                    ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          Communities (1)                                                                (OHIM) ( 1)
(State aid — Definition — Advantage — Normal commer-                      (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
 cial transaction — Rational operator in a market economy)                Colour (shade of orange) — Absolute ground for refusal —
                                                                                Distinctive character — Statement of reasons)
                          (2002/C 323/46)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/47)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-98/00, Linde AG, established in Wiesbaden (Germ-                In Case T-173/00, KWS Saat AG, established in Einbeck
any), represented by H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch, lawyers,                 (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger, lawyer, with an
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-                     address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation
D. Plessing, J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig), v Commission of the              in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and K.-                    (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, E. Joly, J. Miranda de Sousa and
D. Borchardt): Application for partial annulment of Com-                  A. Di Carlo): Action brought against the decision of the Second
mission Decision 2000/524/EC of 18 January 2000 on the                    Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
State aid granted by Germany to Linde AG (OJ 2000 L 211,                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 April 2000
p. 7), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended               (Case R 282/1999-2), the Court of First Instance (Second
Composition), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-              Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
Valdecasas, P. Lindh, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;                  rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a             trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October
judgment on 17 October 2002, in which it:                                 2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.     Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
1.     Annuls Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2000/524/                  for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       EC of 18 January 2000 on the State aid granted by Germany                 Designs) of 19 April 2000 (Case R 282/1999-2) in regard
       to Linde AG;                                                              to services in Class 42;
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those of       2.     Dismisses the remainder of the action;
       the applicant;
                                                                          3.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and two thirds of the
3.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.             costs incurred by the defendant. The defendant shall bear one
                                                                                third of its costs.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2004 in Case C-30/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa): Recheio — Cash & Carry SA v Fazenda Pública/Registo Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas (Recovery of sums paid though not due — Period of 90 days for the bringing of an action — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 17 June 2004
   in Case C-30/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa): Recheio — Cash & Carry SA v Fazenda Pública/Registo Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas (1)

   (Recovery of sums paid though not due - Period of 90 days for the bringing of an action - Principle of effectiveness)
   (2004/C 201/02)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-30/02: REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa (Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Recheio — Cash & Carry SA and Fazenda Pública/Registo Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas, intervener: Ministério Público — on the interpretation of Community law concerning recovery of sums paid though not due — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 2004, in which it has ruled:
   With regard to a claim for repayment of charges levied in breach of Community law, the principle of effectiveness of Community law does not militate against the fixing of a limitation period of 90 days reckoned from the end of the period prescribed for voluntary payment of those charges.

      (1)  OJ C 97, 20.4.2002.


title: Case T-68/11: Action brought on 25 January 2011 — Kastenholz v OHIM — qwatchme (watch dials)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/15

         Action brought on 25 January 2011 — Kastenholz v OHIM — qwatchme (watch dials)
   (Case T-68/11)
   2011/C 113/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erich Kastenholz (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: L. Acker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: qwatchme A/S (Vejle East, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 November 2010 in Case R 1086/2009-3;

               —

               refer the case back to the Cancellation Division for consideration of copyright protection relied on by the applicant, which was not adequately analysed by that Division;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 602636-0003, which shows a watch dial.

      Proprietor of the Community design: qwatchme A/S.

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Breach of Article 25(1)(b), together with Article 4 and Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, (1) for lack of novelty and infringement of Paul Heimbach’s copyright in an artistic work.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 25(1) and Article 5 and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal did not make a clear distinction between the features of ‘novelty’ and ‘individual character’, as well as breach of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, as neither the Board of Appeal nor the Cancellation Division of OHIM had duly analysed whether the Community design constitutes a prohibited use of a work which is protected under German copyright legislation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).


title: Case C-70/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Emmanuel Lebek v Janusz Domino (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(2) — Defendant not entering an appearance — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Document instituting proceedings not served on the defendant in sufficient time — Concept of ‘proceedings to challenge a judgment’ — Application for relief — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 19(4) — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Period within which an application for relief may be submitted)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Emmanuel Lebek v Janusz Domino
   (Case C-70/15) (1)

   ((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(2) - Defendant not entering an appearance - Recognition and enforcement of judgments - Grounds for refusing enforcement - Document instituting proceedings not served on the defendant in sufficient time - Concept of ‘proceedings to challenge a judgment’ - Application for relief - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 19(4) - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Period within which an application for relief may be submitted))
   (2016/C 335/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Emmanuel Lebek

      Respondent: Janusz Domino

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘proceedings to challenge a judgment’ referred to in Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as also including applications for relief when the period for bringing an ordinary challenge has expired.

               2.

               The last subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as excluding the application of provisions of national law concerning the system of applying for relief where the period for filing such applications, as specified in the communication of a Member State to which that provision refers, has expired.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-183/03 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Decision 2003/102/EC — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Arable cultures sector)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-183/03 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Decision 2003/102/EC - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Arable cultures sector)
   (2006/C 60/01)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-183/03 Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and A. Tiemann) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and G. Braun) — application for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 24 April 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), A. Borg Barthet and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.