title: Case C-131/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 — Article 3(3) — Tariff quota — Garlic of Argentinian origin — Import licences — Non-transferability of rights deriving from import licences — Circumvention — Abuse of rights — Conditions — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 4(3))

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/5

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno
      (Case C-131/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 - Article 3(3) - Tariff quota - Garlic of Argentinian origin - Import licences - Non-transferability of rights deriving from import licences - Circumvention - Abuse of rights - Conditions - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 4(3)))
      (2016/C 211/05)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino

         Defendants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

         Intervening party: Roberto Cervati

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 of 2 April 2002 establishing the method for managing tariff quotas and introducing a system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries and Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that they do not, in principle, preclude a mechanism, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby, following an order placed by an operator, a traditional importer within the meaning of the former regulation, having exhausted its licences to import at a preferential rate of duty, with a second operator, also a traditional importer not holding such licences,

                  —

                  goods are, first of all, sold, outside the European Union, by an undertaking connected with the second operator, to a third operator, a new importer within the meaning of the former regulation, holding such licences,

                  —

                  the goods are, then, released for free circulation in the European Union by the third operator at the preferential rate of customs duty, subsequently sold on by the third to the second operator and

                  —

                  the goods are, finally, sold by the second to the first operator, which thereby acquires goods imported under the tariff quota set out in the former regulation despite the fact that the first operator does not hold the necessary licences for so doing.

         (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-196/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings 2203 and 2208 — Malt beer base intended for use in the production of a mixed drink)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   (Case C-196/10) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 2203 and 2208 - Malt beer base intended for use in the production of a mixed drink)
   2011/C 269/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1) and (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1) — Malt beer base with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % obtained from brewed beer which has been specially clarified and subjected to ultrafiltration and which is to be used in the making of a mixed beer drink — Classification under heading 2203 or heading 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature?

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that a liquid described as a ‘malt beer base’, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % and obtained from brewed beer which has been clarified and then subjected to ultrafiltration, by which the concentration of ingredients such as bitter substances and proteins has been reduced, must be classified under heading 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to that regulation, as amended.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-467/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Chiara Baldo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/8

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Chiara Baldo
   (Case C-467/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bergamo

      Criminal proceedings against

   Chiara Baldo

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-51/07: Action brought on 22 February 2007 — Agrar-Invest-Tatschl v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/45

         Action brought on 22 February 2007 — Agrar-Invest-Tatschl v Commission
   (Case T-51/07)
   (2007/C 95/92)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH (St. Andrä im Lavanttal, Ausria) (represented by O. Wenzlaff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of Commission Decision C(2006) 5789 final (REC 05/05) of 4 December 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to find that the subsequent entry into the accounts of import duties amounting to EUR 110 937,60 in respect of the import of sugar originating in Croatia by the applicant from 26 June 2002, which is the subject-matter of the request made by the Republic of Austria of 10 June 2005, should be discounted;

               —

               in the alternative to the second form of order sought, order the defendant to find that the import duties amounting to EUR 110 937,60 in respect of the import of sugar originating from Croatia by the applicant from 26 June 2002, which is the subject-matter of the request made by the Republic of Austria of 10 June 2005, should be remitted.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2006) 5789 final of 4 December 2006 finding, first, that, as regards a specified amount, the subsequent entry into the accounts of import duties was not justified and, secondly, that, as regards a further amount, the subsequent entry into the accounts of import duties was justified and that the remission of those duties in a particular case was not justified (request of the Republic of Austria).
   In this decision directed at the Republic of Austria, the Commission came to the conclusion, applying Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) (‘the Customs Code of the Communities’) and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2), that the subsequent entry into the accounts of import duties amounting to EUR 110 937,60 should not be discounted and that the remission of those import duties was not justified.
   In support of its claim, the applicant argues that the contested decision is unlawful, because the conditions for the discounting of the subsequent entry of the import duties in the accounts under Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code of the Communities or for the remission of the subsequently entered import duties under Article 239 of the Customs Code of the Communities are satisfied.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case T-447/07: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — Scovill Fasteners v Commission

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/21

         Order of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — Scovill Fasteners v Commission
   (Case T-447/07) (1)

   2011/C 362/32
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-187/03 P: Zissis Drouvis v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Pensions — Weighting — Article 82(1) of the Staff Regulations — Principle of equal treatment — Freedom of movement and freedom of establishment for workers — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/30

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Second Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-187/03 P: Zissis Drouvis v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Pensions - Weighting - Article 82(1) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of equal treatment - Freedom of movement and freedom of establishment for workers - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2004/C 118/55)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-107/83 P: Zissis Drouvis, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Maroussi Attikis (Greece), (lawyer: I. Stamoulis), appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 26 February 2003 in Case T-184/00 Drouvis v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by P. Anestis) and Council of the European Union (Agents: D. Zahariou and A. Pilette), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: R. Grass, has made an order on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mr Drouvis to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Case C-479/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 25 October 2012 — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 25 October 2012 — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
   (Case C-479/12)
   2013/C 32/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG

      Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the normal course of business, a design could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, in the case where images of the design were distributed to traders?

               2.

               Is the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that a design could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, even though it was disclosed to third parties without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, in the case where

                           (a)

                           it is made available to only one undertaking in the specialised circles,
                           or

                           (b)

                           it is exhibited in a showroom of an undertaking in China which lies outside the scope of normal market analysis?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Is Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an unregistered Community design bears the burden of proving that the contested use results from copying the protected design?

                           (b)

                           If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative:
                           Is the burden of proof reversed or is the burden of proof incumbent on the holder of the unregistered Community design eased if there are material similarities between the design and the contested use?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Is the right to obtain an injunction prohibiting further infringement of an unregistered Community design, provided for in Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, subject to limitation in time?

                           (b)

                           If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative:
                           Is the limitation in time governed by European Union law and, if so, by which provision?

               5.

                           (a)

                           Is the right to obtain an injunction prohibiting further infringement of an unregistered Community design, provided for in Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, subject to forfeiture?

                           (b)

                           If Question 5(a) is answered in the affirmative:
                           Is the forfeiture governed by European Union law and, if so, by which provision?

               6.

               Is Article 89(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that claims for destruction, disclosure of information and damages by reason of infringement of an unregistered Community design which are pursued in relation to the entirety of the European Union are subject to the law of the Member States in which the acts of infringement were committed?

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


title: Case C-65/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — Leidseplein Beheer B.V. and Others, other parties: Red Bull GmbH and Others

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — Leidseplein Beheer B.V. and Others, other parties: Red Bull GmbH and Others
   (Case C-65/12)
   2012/C 126/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant:

               Leidseplein Beheer B.V.

               H.J.M de Vries

         Defendants:

               Red Bull GmbH

               Red Bull Nederland B.V.

      Question referred

   Is Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that there can be due cause within the meaning of that provision also where the sign that is identical or similar to the trade mark with a reputation was already being used in good faith by the third party/parties concerned before that trade mark was filed?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 22 March 1996 in the case of Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en Plassengebied' BA and Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver in bankruptcy of Mediasafe BV (Case C-104/96)

text:
18 . 5 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 145/7
2 . Does Directive 91 /414/EEC permit a Member State to                   took place was so plain that no reasonable third party
     allow a plant protection product imported from another               could have asserted that no such conflict existed ?
     EEA State or from outside the EEA onto the market as
     identical ( as defined in question 1 ) to a master product       (') OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 41 .
     without any analysis of the actual contents of the
     imported product prior to placing on the market ?
3 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does
     Article 9 ( 2 ) of Directive 91 /414/EEC permit a Member
     State to allow a plant protection product imported from          Action brought on 1 April 1996 by the United Kingdom
     countries outside the EEA onto the market when the                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     importer or person placing the product on the market is                                  ( Case C-106/96 )
     a person without a permanent office within the EEA ?                                       ( 96/C 145/ 15 )
(M OJ No L 230 , 19 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 1 April 1996 by the United
                                                                      Kingdom, represented by Mr John E. Collins , Assistant
                                                                      Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick
                                                                      Wyatt QC , of the English Bar, with an address for service in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad                   Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 22 March                 Roosevelt.
1996 in the case of Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en
Plassengebied' BA and Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver               The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision or
                in bankruptcy of Mediasafe BV                         decisions referred to in the press release of the Commission
                         ( Case C- 1 04/96                            of 23 January 1 996, without prejudice to the competence of
                           ( 96/C 145/ 14                             the Court of Justice to declare the decision or decisions in
                                                                      issue of definitive effect .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                   The applicant asks for costs against the Commission
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of               pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .
22 March 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 1 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of             Pleas in law and main arguments
Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en Plassengebied' BA and
Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver in bankruptcy of                    The United Kingdom seeks the annulment of the decision or
Mediasafe BV, on the following questions :                            decisions referred to in the press release of 23 January 1 996
                                                                      on the following grounds specified in Article 173 ( 2 ) of the
1 . Is it consistent with the First Directive ( J ) for a company     EC Treaty, namely lack of competence, infringement of an
     to be allowed to rely, as against a third party with whom        essential procedural requirement, and infringement of the
     a director generally authorized to represent the                 EC Treaty.
     company has entered into a transaction on its behalf, on
     the fact that the director lacked authority on the ground        The United Kingdom alleges lack of competence, since the
     that the transaction involved a conflict of interests            Commission incurred legal expenditure without lawful
     between him and the company ?                                    authority. The United Kingdom also alleges breach of
                                                                      Article 4 of the EC Treaty, which provides that each
2 . Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative only if the       institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred
     third party had knowledge of the conflict of interests at        upon it by this Treaty .
     the time when the transaction took place, or would
     reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of               The United Kingdom also alleges breach of an essential
     that conflict of interests on the basis of the information       procedural requirement, since the challenged expenditure
     available to him at the time ?                                   was unsupported by reasoning specifying its legal basis.
                                                                      Such reasoning should have been incorporated in a decision
3 . Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative only if the       of the Commission addressed to and notified in full to the
     conflict of interests at the time when the transaction           Member States .


title: Case T-248/16: Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/52

         Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)
   (Case T-248/16)
   (2016/C 270/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘CHATKA’ — European Union trade mark No 943670

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 150/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-48/09 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2009 by Lego Juris A/S against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2008 in Case T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Other party before the Board of Appeal, intervener before the Court of First Instance Mega Brands, Inc.

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/19

         Appeal brought on 2 February 2009 by Lego Juris A/S against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2008 in Case T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Other party before the Board of Appeal, intervener before the Court of First Instance Mega Brands, Inc.
   (Case C-48/09 P)
   (2009/C 82/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Lego Juris A/S (represented by: V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin, T. Dolde, A. Renck, Rechtsanwälte)

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

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance, because it violates Article 71(1)(e)(ii)CTMR (1)

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the contested judgment infringes art. 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance:

               a)

               interpreted art. 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR in such a way as to effectively preclude any shape which performs a function from trade mark protection, independently of whether the criteria of art. 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR as defined by the Court in the Philips/Remington decision (2) are fulfilled or not.

               b)

               applied the wrong criteria in the identification of the essential characteristics of a three-dimensional trade mark: and

               c)

               applied an incorrect functionality test in that it i) did not limit its assessment to the essential characteristics of the trade mark at issues and, ii) did not define the appropriate criteria for assessing whether a characteristic of a shape is functional and, in particular, refused to take into account any potential a lternative designs.

      (1)  OJ L 11, p. 1.

      (2)  Case C-299/99 Philips [2002] ECR I-5475.


title: Case C-102/06: Action brought on  21 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/7

         Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-102/06)
   (2006/C 96/12)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and W. Bogensberger, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2003/9 into national law expired on 6 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 31, 06.02.2003, p. 18


title: Case T-298/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2008 — Efkon v Parliament and Council (Annulment — Directive 2004/52/EC — Interoperability of electronic road toll systems — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2008 — Efkon v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-298/04) (1)

   (Annulment - Directive 2004/52/EC - Interoperability of electronic road toll systems - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 92/55)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Efkon AG (Graz-Andritz, Austria) (represented by: G. Zanger, subsequently by M. Novak, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig and G. Braun, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment in its entirety or, in the alternative, in part, of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 124, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 50)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Efkon AG shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Council.

               3.

               The Parliament and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


Avis juridique important

|

E1994P0007

Reference for an advisory opinion by Högsta domstolen by order of that court of 12 September 1994 in the case of Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg against MSL Dynamics Limited (Case E-7/94)

Official Journal C 347 , 08/12/1994 P. 0014 - 0014

Reference for an advisory opinion by Högsta domstolen by order of that court of 12 September 1994 in the case of Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg against MSL Dynamics Limited (Case E-7/94) (94/C 347/13)Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of 12 September 1994 of Högsta domstolen (the Supreme Court), Sweden, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 September 1994, for an advisory opinion in the case of Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg against MSL Dynamics Limited, on the following question:In a case before a District court regarding payment for delivery of goods, the Swedish defendants request the plaintiff, a British company, to provide security for costs for court proceedings in accordance with Section 1 of the Act (1980:307) on the obligation of foreign plaintiffs to provide security for costs for court proceedings.Is it contrary to the Agreement on the European Economic Area - primarily Article 4 - to require a plaintiff, which is a British legal person, to provide security for costs for court proceedings, when no corresponding requirement is placed upon Swedish legal persons?


title: Case C-77/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
   (Case C-77/17)
   (2017/C 144/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

      Questions referred

               A.

               Must Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) be interpreted as creating a new ground for exclusion from refugee status provided for in Article 13 of the Directive and, consequently, from Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?

               B.

               If the answer to question A is yes, is Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU, thus interpreted, compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, the exclusion clause laid down in Article 1F of the Convention being exhaustively worded and requiring strict interpretation?

               C.

               If the answer to question A is no, must Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a ground for refusing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

               D.

               If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for refusing refugee status without any consideration of fear of persecution, as required by Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?

               E.

               If the answer to questions A and C is no, how can Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention?

      (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Case C-410/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany — Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v DAK-Gesundheit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) — Concept of ‘public contract’ — Scheme for acquiring goods consisting of the authorisation as a supplier of any economic operator who meets the predetermined criteria — Supply of medicinal products that are refundable under a general social security scheme — Contracts concluded between a statutory health insurance fund and all the suppliers of medicinal products based on a given active ingredient who consent to a rebate on the sale price at a predetermined rate — Legislation providing, in principle, for the substitution of a refundable medicinal product marketed by an operator not having concluded such a contract by a medicinal product of the same type marketed by an operator having concluded such a contract)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany — Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v DAK-Gesundheit
   (Case C-410/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) - Concept of ‘public contract’ - Scheme for acquiring goods consisting of the authorisation as a supplier of any economic operator who meets the predetermined criteria - Supply of medicinal products that are refundable under a general social security scheme - Contracts concluded between a statutory health insurance fund and all the suppliers of medicinal products based on a given active ingredient who consent to a rebate on the sale price at a predetermined rate - Legislation providing, in principle, for the substitution of a refundable medicinal product marketed by an operator not having concluded such a contract by a medicinal product of the same type marketed by an operator having concluded such a contract))
   (2016/C 287/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH

      Defendant: DAK-Gesundheit

      Intervener: Kohlpharma GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(2)(a) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a contract scheme, such as that in the main proceedings, through which a public entity intends to acquire goods on the market by contracting throughout the period of validity of that scheme with any economic operator who undertakes to provide the goods concerned in accordance with predetermined conditions, without choosing between the interested operators and, allows them to accede to that scheme throughout its validity, does not constitute a public contract within the meaning of that directive.

               2.

               In so far as the subject matter of an authorisation procedure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is of certain cross-border interest, that procedure must be conceived and organised in accordance with the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, in particular, the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment between economic operators and the consequent obligation of transparency.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-176/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — DTL Corporación v OHIM — Vallejo Rosell (Generia) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Generia — Earlier Community figurative mark Generalia generación renovable — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 63(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — DTL Corporación v OHIM — Vallejo Rosell (Generia)
   (Case T-176/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Generia - Earlier Community figurative mark Generalia generación renovable - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 63(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 034/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: DTL Corporación (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mar Vallejo Rosell (Pinto, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2013 (Case R 661/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ms Mar Vallejo Rosell and DTL Corporación, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               DTL Corporación, SL is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case F-51/11: Action brought on 21 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/56

         Action brought on 21 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-51/11)
   2011/C 252/124
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the EPSO decision to re-open the EPSO/AD/77/06 open competition and to invite the applicant to participate again in the first stage of that competition.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the EPSO decision to re-open the competition;

               —

               annul the EPSO decision of 11 March 2011;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-87/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of 28 February 2000 in the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana SpA

text:
C 149/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.5.2000
By issuing to those taxpayers five-year or ten-year Government         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
bonds, the Italian State has gone far beyond the facultative           Heidelberg by order of that court of 3 March 2000 in the
power conferred on Member States by Article 18(4) of the                      business register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH
Sixth Directive, which allows the difference between tax
deducted and tax due to be carried forward, but only to the
following tax period. To carry the excess further forward                                        (Case C-86/00)
entails infringement of the rule clearly laid down by Article
18(4), frustrating that provision and ultimately constituting a                                 (2000/C 149/38)
serious contravention of the basic principle underlying the
common system of value added tax, namely, the right to
immediate exercise of the right to a refund.                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht, Heidel-
                                                                       berg (Local Court, Heidelberg), received at the Court Registry
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the business
                                                                       register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH on the following
                                                                       questions:
                                                                       A. Does the transfer to Spain of the registered office of a
                                                                           company properly constituted under German law, regis-
                                                                           tered in the German register, and whose sole shareholder
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-                        is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its legal person-
richtshof by order of that court of 10 February 2000 in the                ality, fall within the rights set out in Articles 43 and 48 of
case of Italian Leather SpA against WECO Polstermöbel                      the EC Treaty (formerly Articles 52 and 58 EC)?
                          GmbH & Co.
                                                                       B. Do Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty (previously Articles
                         (Case C-80/00)                                    52 and 58 EC) preclude a national rule prohibiting the
                                                                           transfer to Spain of the registered office of a limited
                        (2000/C 149/37)                                    liability company properly constituted under German
                                                                           law, registered on the German register, and whose sole
                                                                           shareholder is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     legal personality?
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice, Germany) of 10 February 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Italian Leather SpA v
WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. on the following questions
concerning the interpretation of the EC Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Convention’)
(OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32):
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                       di Genova by order of that court of 28 February 2000 in
1. Can judgments be irreconcilable within the meaning of
                                                                                the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana SpA
    Article 27(3) of the Convention when the only difference
    between them lies in the specific requirements for the
    adoption of a particular type of autonomous provisional                                      (Case C-87/00)
    measure (within the meaning of Article 24 of the Conven-
    tion)?
                                                                                (2000/C 149/39)
2. May and must the court of the enforcing State which has
    declared a foreign judgment requiring the debtor to desist         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    from certain activities to be enforceable in accordance with       European Communities by an order of the Giudice di Pace di
    Articles 34(1) and 31(1) of the Convention at the same             Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) of 28 February 2000,
    time order the measures necessary under the law of the             which was received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000,
    enforcing State for enforcement of a restraining order?            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana
                                                                       SpA, on the following questions:
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the
    measures necessary under the law of the enforcing State
    for enforcement of the restraining order be ordered even if        1. Are Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 (1) of 26 June 1998 and
    the judgment to be recognised does not itself include                  Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 (2) 26 June 1998 valid, in
    comparable measures in accordance with the law of the                  view of the fact in that, as a result of belatedly fixing for
    State of judgment, and that law makes no provision at all              the 1998-99 marketing year certain prices applicable to
    for the immediate enforceability of such restraining orders?           the sugar sector, they belatedly determine the intervention
                                                                           prices to be observed on the Italian market, in breach of
                                                                           Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic regulation, Regulation
                                                                           No 1785/81 (3)?
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/23
2. Must Regulation No 1785/81 be interpreted as meaning                       law, annulled on grounds of lack of competence, under
     that the classification of an area as a deficit area is to be            Article 133(2)(b) of the Código do Procedimento Adminis-
     based on a calculation method which treats as being                      trativo (Code on Administrative Procedure), inasmuch as
     consumed in that area sugar which is incorporated there                  the final decision on such matters falls within the purview
     in a processed product even if the latter is eaten in another            of the Commission of the European Communities, and in
     country, or is the classification of an area as a deficit area           other cases, to the opposite effect, it has held that the
     to be based on a calculation method which does not treat                 DAFSE has exclusive competence, a view supported by the
     as being consumed in that area sugar which is incorporated               fact that in Portuguese law it is expressly provided
     there in a processed product even if the latter is eaten in              that authenticated orders or decisions of the DAFSE are
     another country?                                                         enforceable in respect of debts arising from certification.
3. Is Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 26 June 1998, published
     in OJ 1998 L 185, p. 3, valid, in view of the fact that it
     fails to fix a derived intervention price for all areas of Italy    (1) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.
     in accordance with Article 3(1). Article 5(3), and Article          (2) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.
     6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/81 and contains no
     statement of reasons for that omission?
(1) OJ L 185 of 30.6.98, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 185 of 30.6.98, p. 3.
(3) OJ L 177 of 1.7.81, p. 4.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção by
judgment of that court of 24 November 1999 in the case                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
of Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do                   gericht Berlin, by order of that court of 3 December 1999
Fundo Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria                     in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye Bicakci,
         de Mobiliário e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda                  Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land
                                                                                Berlin
                           (Case C-88/00)
                          (2000/C 149/40)                                                          (Case C-89/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção (Second Sub-Chamber                                     (2000/C 149/41)
of the First Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court) of
24 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo                European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria de Mobiliário            Berlin (Administrative Court, Berlin), of 3 December 1999,
e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda. The Supremo Tribunal Admin-             received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2000, for a
istrativo referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the          preliminary ruling in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye
interpretation of Community law, namely:                                 Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land
                                                                         Berlin, on the following question:
— Articles 1, 5(4), 6(1) and (2), and 7(1), (2) and (5) of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 (1) of 17 October
     1983 on the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC (2)
     on the tasks of the European Social Fund (ESF);                     Is the termination of the residence of a Turkish national who
                                                                         fulfils the requirements of the first sentence of Article 7 of
     and                                                                 Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, by
— Article 5(1) and (5) of Council Decision 83/516/EEC on                 the expulsion of that person solely on general preventive
                                                                         grounds relating to the deterrence of other aliens, compatible
     the tasks of the European Social Fund in order to ascertain
                                                                         with Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80?
     the legal nature of the certification by the national
     authorities as to the accuracy of the facts and accounts in
     payment claims for the return of certain amounts relating
     to vocational training projects funded by the European
     Social Fund, a certificate on which the Supremo Tribunal
     Administrativo has, in some cases, according to its case-


title: Case T-548/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — Guiral Broto v OHIM — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/58

         Action brought on 22 September 2012 — Guiral Broto v OHIM — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
   (Case T-548/15)
   (2015/C 398/73)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Café del Sol’ — Application for registration No 6 1 05  985

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2015 in Case R 2755/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and declare the admissibility of the opposition based on the priority trade mark owned by the opposing party, Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, falling within Class 42 of the International Classification.

               —

               if the opposition is allowed, confirm the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark No 006105985 CAFÉ DEL SOL applied for with respect to the ‘provision of food and beverages, temporary accommodation and catering’, falling within Class 43 of the International Classification, requested by German company Gastro & Soul GmbH; or, in the event that the Court does not have jurisdiction to do so, refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, with the direction to grant the opposition.

               —

               with respect to the evidence, consider the documents annexed to the present application, numbered 1 to 4, as specified in the attached list of accompanying documents, as having been provided together with the relevant evidence in the administrative procedure.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Inconsistency ‘extra petitum’ of the contested decision, since the applicant did not raise the inadmissibility of the opposition as one of the grounds for the application.

               —

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


title: Case T-110/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — International Management Group v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation — Access refused — Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Category of documents)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — International Management Group v Commission
   (Case T-110/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation - Access refused - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Category of documents))
   (2016/C 251/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by M. Burgstaller, Solicitor, and E. Wright, Barrister, and subsequently by A. Tymen and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision THOR/C4/LL/el/(S) (2015) 4287 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 6 February 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the investigation concerning it.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders International Management Group to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case C-502/03: Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
21.2.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 47/15
2.     If the answer to the second alternative in question 1.                          failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and
       above is in the affirmative:                                                    9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
                                                                                amended by Directive 91/156/EEC. (2)
       Does the proviso ‘subject to the same proviso’ contained
       in the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive
       92/12/EEC refer, also on taxation of the supply of services         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
       relating to products subject to excise duty as defined by
       Article 3(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC, only to the condition
       laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that
       directive, namely ‘provided, however, that those taxes do
       not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade               Pleas in law and main arguments
       between Member States’, or in such a case must ‘specific
       purposes’ for the tax, as laid down in Article 3(2) of the
       directive, also exist?                                              According to the most recent records (December 2002), 1458
                                                                           unlawful and uncontrolled waste tips are operating which
                                                                           receive waste from 47 % of the country’s population.
(1) OJ L 76, p. 1.
                                                                           The Greek authorities informed the Commission that the
                                                                           programme to reduce unlawful and uncontrolled waste dis-
                                                                           posal sites and their replacement with lawful landfill sites
                                                                           meeting public health requirements will only be completed at
                                                                           the end of 2007.
Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hel-                       The Commission considers that, inasmuch as it is allowing the
                           lenic Republic                                  unlawful and uncontrolled sites to operate on its territory, the
                                                                           Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                           Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as
                          (Case C-502/03)                                  amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.
                           (2004/C 47/25)                                  (1) OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Nov-
ember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November
                                                                           2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the
—      declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary:                 Commission of the European Communities
       —     to ensure that waste is disposed of without
             endangering human health and without harming                                            (Case C-506/03)
             the environment,
                                                                                (2004/C 47/26)
       —     to prohibit the abandonment, dispοsal and uncon-
             trolled treatment of waste, to ensure that any holder
             of waste has it handled by a private or public waste
             collector or by an undertaking which carries out
             disposal, or disposes of it himself, in accordance            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
             with the measures taken under Article 4,                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November 2003)
       —     to ensure that the establishments or undertakings             by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Wolf-
             which carry out disposal operations operate under a           Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Finance,
             permit from the competent authority or under a                and Christoph von Donat, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for
             permit which meets the legal requirements, has                service at the Federal Ministry for Finance, Berlin (Germany).


title: Joined Cases C-124/11, C-125/11 and C-143/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Karen Dittrich (C-124/11), Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Robert Klinke (C-125/11) and Jörg-Detlef Müller v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-143/11) (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — National rules — Assistance granted to public servants in the event of illness — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 3 — Scope — Concept of ‘pay’ )

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Karen Dittrich (C-124/11), Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Robert Klinke (C-125/11) and Jörg-Detlef Müller v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-143/11)
   (Joined Cases C-124/11, C-125/11 and C-143/11) (1)

   (Equal treatment in employment and occupation - National rules - Assistance granted to public servants in the event of illness - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 3 - Scope - Concept of ‘pay’)
   2013/C 26/08
   Language of the cases: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-124/11 and C-125/11), Jörg-Detlef Müller (C-143/11)

      Defendants: Karen Dittrich (C-124/11), Robert Klinke (C-125/11), Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-143/11)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for assistance paid to public servants in case of illness excluding life partners from the members of the family who can be covered by the assistance in question — Equal treatment of workers in a registered partnership and married workers — Scope of Directive 2000/78/EC — Concept of remuneration

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1)(c) and 3(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that assistance granted to public servants in the event of illness, such as that granted to public servants of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland under the Law on federal public servants (Bundesbeamtengesetz), falls within the scope of that directive if it is the responsibility of the State, as a public employer, to finance it, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.09.2011.


title: Case T-536/12: Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/25

         Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)
   (Case T-536/12)
   2013/C 38/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aroa Bodegas, SL (Zurukoain, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2012 in Case R 1845/2010-4;

               —

               annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2010 (opposition B1509499);

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘aroa’ for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 276 297

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Muga, SL

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with word element ‘aro’ for goods in Class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Commerce, Brussels, by judgment of that court of 7 July 1997 in the case of Procureur du Roi v. Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA, abbreviated as D.M. Transport (Case C-256/97)

text:
C 271 /8             1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 9 . 97
    — breach of the principle of proportionality: if, in             2.  Is it relevant that in Austria most nurseries are State
         observance of the Commission's interim measure,                 run or State-aided ?
         Portugal were to take the step of suspending
         immediately the State's guarantee, the creditor
         banks could demand immediate payment by the
         State of EPAC 's credit — which would thus be
         rendered insolvent and consequently have to be
         wound up — or directly from the Portuguese State            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
         on the basis of its contractual responsibility.             Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 24 March
                                                                     1997 in the case of Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH v. Löwa
                                                                                Warenhandel GmbH
         The measure which the Commission seeks to
         impose is, therefore, manifestly fundamental and                                   ( Case C-255/97)
         inappropriate and absolutely disproportionate to                                     ( 97/C 271/11 )
         any damage — which the Commission did not
         even attempt to identify — which might arise from
         the State's maintaining the guarantee until the final       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         decision,                                                   European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
                                                                     Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 24 March 1997,
                                                                     which was received at the Court Registry on 14 July 1997,
    — failure of the Commission to provide figures for its           for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pfeiffer Großhandel
         accounting: the mere granting of the State                  GmbH v. Löwa Warenhandel GmbH on the following
         guarantee does not constitute aid since the                 question:
         guarantee cannot be described as aid inasmuch as
          EPAC is not due payment of amounts owed by                 Is Article 30 or Article 52 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
         way of capital or interest from the State acting as         interpreted as precluding the application of national
         guarantor on behalf of a debtor undertaking, nor            provisions which require that in the case of trade marks or
         would it be sufficient that EPAC's claim against            designations of undertakings which are liable to be
          Silopor, for which the State is liable, were satisfied     confused the one with earlier priority is to be protected,
          for EPAC to be able to dispense entirely with the          and hence prohibit an undertaking from using, in three
          State's guarantee and completely recover its               provinces of Austria, a trade mark or designation under
          financial equilibrium .                                    which companies in the same group lawfully operate in
                                                                     other Member States ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Linz by order of that court of 24 October 1996 in the case           Commerce, Brussels, by judgment of that court of 7 July
of Gabriele Gruber v. Silhouette International Schmied               1997 in the case of Procureur du Roi v. Déménagements-
                       GmbH & Co KG .                                Manutention       Transport SA, abbreviated       as     D.M.
                        ( Case C-249/97)                                                         Transport
                                                                                ( Case C-256/97)
                           97/C 271 / 10
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /12 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
Linz ( Labour and Social Court) of 24 October 1996,                  Commerce ( Commercial Court), Brussels of 7 July 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 8 July 1997,             received at the Court Registry on 15 July 1997, for a
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gabriele Gruber v.           preliminary ruling in the case of Procureur du Roi against
Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co KG on the                 Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA, abbreviated
following questions :                                                as D.M. Transport, on the following questions:
                                                                     1 . Is Article 92 of the Treaty to be interpreted as
1 . Is it compatible with Article 119 of the EC Treaty                   meaning that measures in the form of payment
    that, owing to lack of child-care facilities,                        facilities granted by a public body such as the ONSS
    predominantly women have to terminate their                          enabling a commercial company to retain over a
    employment in order to look after their children and                 period of at least eight years a proportion of the sums
    these women, despite fulfilment of additional                        collected from staff and to use those sums in support
    conditions ( longer service ), receive no more than half             of its commercial activities, when that undertaking is
    of the compensation payable upon termination of                      unable to obtain funding under normal market
    employment for the actual length of their service                    conditions or to increase its capital, are to be
     ( Paragraph 23a ( 3 ) of the Angestelltengesetz ) whilst            considered State aid within the meaning of that
    men keep the full compensation period ?                               article ?
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97            I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 271 /9
2 . If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is                 In view of the failure to fulfil obligations, give an
      Article 92 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning                  official explanation or any reply, the company must
      that such aid is compatible with the common market ?                   take legal action before the Court in order to obtain
                                                                             compensation in damages consisting in the amount set
                                                                             out in the invoice and interest thereon as from two
                                                                             months after the date of the invoice, subject to further
                                                                             interest accruing in the meantime .
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by E-Quattro, società in                ( b ) Failure       to    continue         the  contractual
nome collettivo, having its seat in Laveno-Mombello,                         relationship
Varese, Italy, against Commission of the European
                             Communities                                     The contract concluded between the parties provides
                          ( Case C-257/97)                                   for, at most, a duration of two years, although
                                                                             performance is divided into two stages .
                            ( 97/C 271/13 )
                                                                             Although the Commission reserved the right not to
An action against the Commission of the European                             proceed to the second stage, it is nevertheless true that
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                       such a right may not be indiscriminate or arbitrary
the European Communities on 16 July 1997 by E-                               and in any event, account must be taken of the
Quattro, società in nome collettivo, having its seat in                      circumstances in which it is exercised .
Laveno-Mombello, Varese, Italy, represented by Giuseppe
Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the                   Finally, the applicant is of the view that the
Corte di Cassazione ( Court of Cassation ) of the Italian                    termination in question must be justified, notified to
Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                       the parties in good time and in circumstances such as
the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias                              not to prejudice the legitimate expectations that the
Hardt .
                                                                             contract would proceed as normal .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 . order the Commission to make good the damage
      suffered and being suffered by the applicant as a result
      of the persistent delay in paying the balance of the             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
      services set out in the unpaid invoice;                          Verwaltungssenat fur Kärnten by order of that tribunal of
                                                                       8 July 1997 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure
                                                                       Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH v.
2 . order, further, the Commission to make good the
                                                                                Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft
      damage caused to the company by the unjustified
      termination of the contract and by its notification on                                    Case C-258/97 )
      the last possible date;                                                                    ( 97/C 271 /14 )
3.    the whole of the above to be in the amount set out in
      the application or together with interest accruing from          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the due date to the date of actual payment;                      European Communities by an order of the Unabhängiger
                                                                       Verwaltungssenat fur Kärnten ( Independent Administrative
                                                                       Senate for Carinthia ) of 8 July 1997, which was received
4. order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings .               at the Court Registry on 17 July 1997, for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH v.
                                                                       Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft         on      the
                                                                       following questions :
( a ) Payment for the services provided
                                                                        1 . Is Article 2 ( 8 ) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
      Article 7 ( 2 ) of the contract stipulates that the                    21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
      Commission is to effect payment upon presentation of                   regulations and administrative provisions relating to
      the invoice or within two months from the date of
                                                                             the application of review procedures to the award of
      receipt thereof.                                                       public supply and public works contracts ( ! ) to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that the Unabhängiger
      The services in respect of the first stage were                        Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten fulfils the conditions for
      completed in March 1997 and the invoice for the                        a body responsible for review procedures with respect
      balance was sent on 6 March 1997 .                                     to services ?
      Already four months have elapsed without the amount              2 . Are these or other provisions of Council Directive 89/
      set out in the invoice having been paid and without                    665/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations
      the slightest official explanation or reply.                           and administrative provisions relating to the


title: Case T-358/09: Action brought on 16 September 2009 — Sociedad Agricola Requingua v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (TORO DE PIEDRA)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/79

         Action brought on 16 September 2009 — Sociedad Agricola Requingua v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (TORO DE PIEDRA)
   (Case T-358/09)
   2009/C 267/141
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda (Santiago, Chile) (represented by: E. Vorbuchner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (Toro, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in case R 1117/2008-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear all the costs, i.e. the costs of the opposition proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the present proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “TORO DE PIEDRA”, for goods in class 33

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark “D. ORIGEN TORO” for goods in class 33; Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Denominación de Origen TORO” for goods in class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 75(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009 and the right to be heard as the Board of Appeal failed to hear the latest submission of the applicant; infringement of the obligation to state reasons according to Article 75(1) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to reason why it abstained from taking the latest submission of the applicant into account.


title: Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari) — Giuseppe Atzeni, Francesco Atzori, Giuseppe Ignazio Boi v Regione autonoma della Sardegna (State aid — Decision 97/612/EC — Preferential loans in favour of agricultural undertakings — Article 92(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (c) EC) — Admissibility — Legal basis — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari) — Giuseppe Atzeni, Francesco Atzori, Giuseppe Ignazio Boi v Regione autonoma della Sardegna
   (Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03) (1)

   (State aid - Decision 97/612/EC - Preferential loans in favour of agricultural undertakings - Article 92(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (c) EC) - Admissibility - Legal basis - Legitimate expectations)
   (2006/C 131/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Giuseppe Atzeni, Francesco Atzori, Giuseppe Ignazio Boi

      Defendants: Regione autonoma della Sardegna
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari — Validity of Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997 on aid granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agricultural sector (OJ L 248, p. 27).
   Operative part of the judgment
   Examination of Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997 on aid granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agricultural sector has revealed no ground capable of affecting the validity of that decision.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.

      OJ C 71, 20.03.2004


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-76/98 P and C-77/98 P: Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and The NutraSweet Company v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Dumping — Normal value — Existence of a patent in the exporter's domestic market — Effect on the lawfulness of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty of an allegedly illegal element of the regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty)

text:
C 200/8                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              of 3 May 2001                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-204/97: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
                                                                                of 3 May 2001
                   the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Aid for producers of liqueur wines and eaux-                   in Joined Cases C-76/98 P and C-77/98 P: Ajinomoto Co.,
de-vie — Aid granted by the French Republic in the context                  Inc. and The NutraSweet Company v Council of the
                 of an increase in internal taxation)                                               European Union (1)
                             (2001/C 200/13)                                (Appeal — Dumping — Normal value — Existence of a
                                                                            patent in the exporter’s domestic market — Effect on the
                                                                            lawfulness of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-
                                                                            dumping duty of an allegedly illegal element of the regulation
                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                (2001/C 200/14)
                      in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-204/97: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,                                    (Language of the case: English)
Â. Seiça Neves and C. Botelho Moniz) supported by Kingdom
of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: A. M. Alves Vieira and                        In Joined Cases C-76/98 P and C-77/98 P: Ajinomoto Co.,
D. Triantafyllou) supported by French Republic (Agents:                     Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by M. Siragusa,
K. Rispal-Bellanger and G. Mignot) — application for annul-                 avvocato, T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and V. Donaldson,
ment of the Commission’s decision of 6 November 1996                        solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg, and The
concerning aid intended to be granted by the French Republic                NutraSweet Company, established at Deerfield (United States),
to producers of liqueur wines and eaux de vie in the form of                represented by J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and F. Di Gianni, avvocato,
aid for promotional measures and technical aid for research,                with an address for service in Luxembourg — appeals against
technical support and investment, a summary of which was                    the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of            Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of
6 March 1997 (OJ 1997 C 70, p. 14) — the Court, composed                    18 December 1997 in Joined Cases T-159/94 and T-160/94
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Third and Sixth Chambers,                  Ajinomoto and NutraSweet v Council [1997] ECR II-2461,
acting for the President, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                    seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporte-               the proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:
ur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Judges;         G. Houttuin and S. Marquardt, assisted by H.-J. Rabe and
S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,              G.M. Berrisch) and Commission of the European Communities
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in                   (Agent: N. Khan) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
which it:                                                                   C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporte-
                                                                            ur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 6 November 1996                  P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
       concerning aid intended to be granted by the French Republic         for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in
       to producers of liqueur wines and eaux de vie in the form of aid     which it:
       for promotional measures and technical aid for research,
       technical support and investment;                                    1.    Dismisses the appeals;
2.     Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay             2.    Orders Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and The NutraSweet Company to
       the costs;                                                                 bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council
                                                                                of the European Union in these proceedings;
3.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear
       their own costs.                                                     3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                                                                                its own costs.
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                  (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.


title: Joined Cases F-135/11, F-51/12, F-110/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — BU v EMA (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Act adversely affecting an official — Request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Request for the reclassification of a contract — Reasonable period — Complaint against the rejection of a compliant — Article 8 of the CEOS — Duty of care)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — BU v EMA
   (Joined Cases F-135/11, F-51/12, F-110/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Act adversely affecting an official - Request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Request for the reclassification of a contract - Reasonable period - Complaint against the rejection of a compliant - Article 8 of the CEOS - Duty of care)
   2013/C 252/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BU (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented: in Case F-135/11, by S. Vincenzo initially, then by T. Jablonski and G. Gavrilidou, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers; in Case F-51/12, by T. Jablonski and G. Gavrilidou, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers, and in Case F-110/12, by T. Jablonski and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the European Medicines Agency not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency not to renew BU’s contract, notified by the letter of 30 May 2011;

               2.

               Dismisses the action in Case F-135/11 as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the actions in Cases F-51/12 and F-110/12;

               4.

               Orders the European Medicines Agency to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by BU in Cases F-135/11 and F-51/12;

               5.

               Orders BU to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency in Case F-110/12.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 24; OJ C 209, 14.7.2012, p. 14; OJ C 379, 8.12.12, p. 34.