title: Case T-328/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, beige and dark red) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, beige and dark red — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, beige and dark red)
      (Case T-328/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, beige and dark red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/32)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2010 (Case R 190/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, beige and dark red as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-103/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Snezhana Somova v Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 12, 45, 46 and 94 — National legislation making the grant of a pension subject to a condition that old-age insurance contributions be discontinued — Purchase of missing periods of insurance in return for the payment of contributions — Overlapping of periods of insurance in several Member States — Possibility for the insured person to waive the rule relating to the aggregation of periods of contribution and insurance — Cancellation of the pension granted and recovery of any overpayment — Requirement to pay interest)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Snezhana Somova v Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’
   (Case C-103/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 12, 45, 46 and 94 - National legislation making the grant of a pension subject to a condition that old-age insurance contributions be discontinued - Purchase of missing periods of insurance in return for the payment of contributions - Overlapping of periods of insurance in several Member States - Possibility for the insured person to waive the rule relating to the aggregation of periods of contribution and insurance - Cancellation of the pension granted and recovery of any overpayment - Requirement to pay interest))
   (2015/C 007/05)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Snezhana Somova

      Defendant: Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 49 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State, such as Article 94(1) of the Social Insurance Code (Kodeks za sotsialnoto osiguryavane), which makes the award of an old-age pension subject to the prior condition of discontinuing the payment of social security contributions relating to activities carried out in another Member State.

               2.

               Articles 45, 46(2) and 94(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as not permitting insured persons to choose that, for the purposes of determining rights acquired in a Member State, periods of insurance completed in another Member State prior to the date of application of that regulation in the first Member State are not taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Case T-383/09: Action brought on 28 September 2009 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEX)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/60

         Action brought on 28 September 2009 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEX)
   (Case T-383/09)
   2009/C 282/112
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc. (San Mateo, United States) (represented by S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2009 in case R 138/2009-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “BEHAVIOURAL INDEX” for goods and services in classes 9 and 36

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal (i) erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the mark, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods and services in question; (ii) failed to establish facts of its own motion that would show that the Community trade mark concerned was descriptive to the relevant public, even though it correctly concluded that the relevant public was specialised; and (iii) failed to take account of the public interest that underlies this ground for refusal and failed to establish on the evidence that there was, in the relevant specialised sphere, a reasonable likelihood that other traders in that sphere would wish to use the Community trade mark concerned in the future.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 May 2000 in Case C-424/98: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Right of residence — Directives 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC — Conditions as to resources)

text:
C 247/4                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.8.2000
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European              U. Leanza, assisted by D. del Gaizo — application for a
Communities (Third Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case                           declaration that
T-274/97 Ca’ Pasta v Commission [1998] ECR II-2925,
seeking to have that order set aside, the other party to                      —    by requiring family members of beneficiaries of Council
the proceedings being the Commission of the European                               Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of
Communities — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:                             residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) to have resources one
R. Schintgen, President of Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris                       third higher in amount than the minimum required for
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,                       family members of beneficiaries of Council Directive
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:                       90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence
                                                                                for employees and self-employed persons who have
1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 16 July               ceased their occupational activity (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 28);
      1998 in Case T-274/97 Ca’ Pasta v Commission;
                                                                              —    by limiting the types of proof which may be submitted
                                                                                and, in particular, by providing that certain documents
2.    Annuls the implied decision suspending Community aid con-                    must be issued or certified by the authorities of another
      tained in the Commission’s letter of 4 August 1997 to Ca’                    Member State; and
      Pasta Srl;
                                                                              —    by requiring students who are citizens of other Member
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay                     States and who are requesting recognition of their right
      the costs, including the costs at first instance.                            of residence in Italy pursuant to Council Directive
                                                                                93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence
                                                                                for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) and members of their
                                                                                family to guarantee to the Italian authorities that they
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                                have resources of a certain amount and, as regards the
                                                                                means to be used for that purpose, not clearly leaving the
                                                                                student a choice between making a declaration and such
                                                                                alternative means as are at least equivalent, and by not
                                                                                allowing the declaration to be used where the student is
                                                                                accompanied by members of his family,
                                                                              the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              those directives
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward
                                                                              (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kap-
                                                                              teyn, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Col-
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                   omer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                              judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:
                            of 25 May 2000                                    1.   Declares that
                                                                                —     by limiting the means of proof that may be relied upon,
in Case C-424/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                    and in particular by providing that certain documents
                       ties v Italian Republic (1)                                       must be issued or certified by the authority of a Member
                                                                                State, and
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Right                       —     by, first, requiring students who are nationals of other
of residence — Directives 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and                                     Member States and who are seeking recognition of their
           93/96/EEC — Conditions as to resources)                                       and their families’ right of residence in Italy pursuant to
                                                                                Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on
                                                                                the right of residence for students to guarantee to the
                            (2000/C 247/06)
                                                                                Italian authorities that they have resources of a specific
                                                                                amount; secondly, as regards the means to be used for
                                                                                that purpose, by not clearly leaving such students the
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                                    choice between a declaration and such alternative means
                                                                                as are at least equivalent; and, finally, by not allowing the
                                                                                use of a declaration where a student is accompanied by
                                                                                members of his family,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right
                                                                                of residence, Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990
In Case C-424/98: Commission of the European Communities                           on the right of residence for employees and self-employed
(Agents: initially A. Aresu, of its Legal Service, and sub-                        persons who have ceased their occupational activity, and
sequently K. Oldfelt Hjertonsson) v Italian Republic (Agent:                       Directive 93/96;
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 247/5
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                               The position is not in any way changed by the fact that the taxpayer
                                                                           applying for such a tax exemption is an ordinary shareholder or an
3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of the                employee who holds shares giving rise to the payment of dividends
      European Communities to bear their own costs.                        under an employees’ savings plan.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               of 6 June 2000
                            of 6 June 2000                                 in Case C-281/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Pretore di Bolzano): Roman Angonese v Cassa di
                                                                                Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (1)
in Case C-35/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van                       (Freedom of movement for persons — Access to employment
               Financiën v B.G.M. Verkooijen (1)                           — Certificate of bilingualism issued by a local authority —
                                                                           Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
(Free movement of capital — Direct taxation of share                         Article 39 EC) — Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)
dividends — Exemption — Limitation to shares in companies
             whose seat is within national territory)                                                (2000/C 247/08)
                           (2000/C 247/07)                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-281/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                    in the European Court Reports)                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di
                                                                           Bolzano, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                           pending before that court between Roman Angonese and
In Case C-35/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano — on the interpretation of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad der                  Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39
Nederlanden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    EC) and Articles 3(1) and 7(1) and (4) of Regulation (EEC)
pending before that court between Staatssecretaris van Financi-            No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom
ën and B.G.M. Verkooijen — on the interpretation of Council                of movement for workers within the Community (Official
Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation                Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — the Court,
of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5) and of                   composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Ed-
Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  ward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers,
Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) — the Court, composed of:                        P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,             H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fen-
L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kap-            nelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2000, in which it
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; A. La Pergola,             has ruled:
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2000,            Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
in which it has ruled:                                                     precludes an employer from requiring persons applying to take part
                                                                           in a recruitment competition to provide evidence of their linguistic
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for           knowledge exclusively by means of one particular diploma issued only
the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty precludes a legislative     in one particular province of a Member State.
provision of a Member State which, like the one at issue in the main
proceedings, makes the grant of an exemption from the income tax           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
payable on dividends paid to natural persons who are shareholders
subject to the condition that those dividends are paid by a company
whose seat is in that Member State.


title: Case C-229/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2008 — Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2008 — Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main
   (Case C-229/08)
   (2008/C 223/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Colin Wolf

      Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the national legislature enjoy a wide general margin of discretion to exploit the room for manoeuvre in Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) or is the discretion limited to what is needed, at any rate when it comes to setting an upper age limit for recruitment with a view to a minimum period of service before retirement in accordance with point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               2.

               Does the criterion of need in point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC express the appropriateness of the means mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC in more concrete terms, thereby restricting the scope of that general provision?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Does pursuing the interest in recruiting officials who will remain in active service for as long as possible by having a maximum recruitment age constitute a legitimate aim for a public employer to pursue in the context of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

                           (b)

                           Is the implementation of such an aim inappropriate as soon as it results in officials serving for longer than the 5 years necessary to obtain the minimum pension guaranteed by law in the case of early retirement?

                           (c)

                           Is the implementation of such an aim inappropriate only once it results in officials serving for longer than the time necessary — at present 19.51 years — to earn in full the minimum pension guaranteed by law in the case of early retirement?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Is it a legitimate aim within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC to keep the total number of officials to be recruited to a minimum by means of a maximum recruitment age which is as low as possible, in order to keep to a minimum the amount of individual benefits such as provision for accidents or sickness (assistance which also covers family members)?

                           (b)

                           In that respect, what significance can be accorded to the fact that, as officials grow older, provisions for accidents or sickness benefits (including for family members) are higher than for younger officials, so that the recruitment of older officials could increase the overall cost of such provision?

                           (c)

                           In that respect, must firm forecasts or statistics be available, or are general assumptions based on probability sufficient?

               5.

                           (a)

                           If a public employer wants to apply a particular maximum recruitment age in order to ensure a ‘balanced age structure in the particular career’, is that aim legitimate within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

                           (b)

                           If so, what requirements must the criteria for creating such an age structure satisfy in order to meet the conditions for a ground of justification (appropriateness and necessity, need)?

               6.

               If in respect of a maximum recruitment age a public employer refers to the fact that, until that age is reached, there are regular opportunities to acquire the relevant qualifications for recruitment on a training programme for middle-ranking officers in the fire service, in the form of appropriate school education and technical training, does that constitute a legitimate consideration within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               7.

               What criteria should be used to assess whether a minimum period of service before retirement is appropriate or necessary?

                           (a)

                           Is the need for a minimum period of service justified solely as a form of compensation for having acquired, exclusively at the employer's expense, a qualification with the employer (professional qualification for a middle-ranking post in the fire service), in the interests of ensuring, with regard to such a qualification, an adequate subsequent period of service with that employer, so that the costs of training the officer are thus gradually worked off?

                           (b)

                           What is the maximum permissible length of the service period phase that follows the period of training? Can it exceed five years? If so, under what conditions?

                           (c)

                           Irrespective of question 7(a), can the appropriateness or necessity of a minimum period of service be justified by the consideration that, in the case of officials whose pensions are financed solely by the employer, the estimated period of active service from recruitment to likely retirement date must suffice to earn in full the minimum pension guaranteed by law by serving for a period which is at present 19.51 years?

                           (d)

                           Conversely, is a refusal to recruit someone justified under Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC only if the person would be recruited at an age which, given his likely retirement date, would result in the minimum pension being payable although it had not yet been fully earned?

               8.

                           (a)

                           Should the date of retirement for the purposes of point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC be determined on the basis of the age limit fixed by law for retirement and subsequent receipt of a pension, or must it be based on statistical calculations of the average retirement age of a particular group of officials or employees?

                           (b)

                           Where applicable, to what extent should it be taken into consideration that in individual cases the normal date of an official's retirement can be postponed by up to two years? Does that circumstance lead to a corresponding increase in the maximum recruitment age?

               9.

               Can the initial in-service training to be completed be included in the calculation of the minimum period of service under Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC? In that respect, is it relevant whether the training period has to be fully accounted for as pensionable service for the purpose of obtaining the pension, or should the period of training be excluded from the time period for which an employer may require a minimum length of service under point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               10.

               Are the provisions in the second sentence of Paragraph 15(1) and in Paragraph 15(3) of the General Law on Equal Treatment compatible with Article 17 of Directive 2000/78/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


C 278/34             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.9.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-403/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-406/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/71)                                                     (98/C 278/74)
By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-403/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-406/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of               of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Germany.                                                         Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-291/95 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-411/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/72)                                                     (98/C 278/75)
By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of           By order of 16 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-291/95: Kingdom of           removal from the register of Case C-411/97: Commission
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities.               of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-155/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-105/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/73)                                                     (98/C 278/76)
By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of           By order of 25 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-105/97 (reference for
of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.               a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                 Trento): Leonardo Gulli v. Ente Poste Italiane.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.


title: Case C-468/00: Action brought on 22 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 45/16                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Action brought on 22 December 2000 by the Commission                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
of the European Communities against the French Republic                   Cassation Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et
                                                                          Économique, by judgment of that court of 19 December
                                                                          2000 in the case of Ravil S.à r.l. against Bellon Import
                                                                                S.à r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A.
                          (Case C-468/00)
                                                                                (Case C-469/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/31)
                           (2001/C 45/30)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et Économique,
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 December               of 19 December 2000, received at the Court Registry on
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       27 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Bernard Mongin, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,            Ravil S.à r.l. v Bellon Import Sà r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A. on the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                following question:
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          ‘Must Article 29 (ex Article 34) of the EC Treaty be interpreted
                                                                          as precluding national legislation reserving the “grana padano”
                                                                          designation of origin for cheese grated in the region of
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              production in so far as such an obligation is not indispensable
                                                                          for preserving specific characteristics which the product has
                                                                          acquired?’
1.    declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
      harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national
      boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and
      passengers by inland waterway in the Community (1), or,
      in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-502/99 (1)
      to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                                (2001/C 45/32)
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         By order of 6 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case C-502/99: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v French Republic.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189), whereby a directive is binding
upon any Member State to which it is addressed as to the
result to be achieved, implies an obligation on Member States
to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in
directives. That time-limit expired on 7 April 1998 without                      Removal from the register of Case C-318/99 (1)
the French Republic implementing the necessary provisions to
comply with Directive 96/50/EC.                                                                     (2001/C 45/33)
                                                                          By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
(1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 31.                                                 from the register of Case C-318/99: Italian Republic v Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.


title: Case T-565/14: Action brought on 30 July 2014 — EEB v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/51

      Action brought on 30 July 2014 — EEB v Commission
      (Case T-565/14)
      (2014/C 395/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested Commission decision of 12 June 2014 (Ares (2014)1915757);

                  —

                  annul the second contested Commission Decision 2014/804/EU of 17 February 2014;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceeding.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 June 2014 (Ares (2014)1915757) dismissing as inadmissible the applicant’s request for internal review regarding Commission Decision C(2014) 804 final of 17 February 2014 on the notification by the Republic of Poland of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions. The applicant further seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 804 final of 17 February 2014.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law concerning the decision Ares (2014) 1915757, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1367/2006 (2) and Directive No 2010/75:

                              —

                              as the decision on the transitional national plan is a measure of individual scope and therefore an administrative act under Regulation No 1367/2006. According to the applicant the Commission should thus have declared the request for internal review admissible;

                              —

                              as the Commission should have interpreted Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006 in accordance with the Aarhus Convention and found Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 illegal;

                              —

                              as the Commission’s argumentation is based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant provisions of Directive 2010/75/EU.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law concerning the Decision C(2014) 804 final, alleging infringement of Article 17 TEU, Directive 2010/75/EU, Commission Implementing Decision 2012/115/EU (3), the Aarhus Convention, Directive 2001/42/EC (4) and Directive 2008/50/EC (5).

         (1)  Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17).

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

         (3)  Commission Implementing Decision 2012/115/EU of 10 February 2012 laying down rules concerning the transitional national plans referred to in Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (notified under document C(2012) 612) (OJ 2012 L 52, p. 12).

         (4)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

         (5)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).


title: Case T-252/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by Q against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/25

         Action brought on 4 July 2005 by Q against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-252/05)
   (2005/C 229/55)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by Q, residing in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Yola Minatchy, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               to the extent necessary, annul the decision of 29 March 2005 by which the Commission dismissed the applicant's complaint, brought on 29 November 2004, against the its implied refusals of the request of 29 April 2004, pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, for assistance and protection from bullying and claim for damages, and the requests for the adoption of immediate preventive measures of 7 May 2004 and 24 May 2004;

               2.

               annul the Commission's decision of 4 May 2005 in reply to the applicant's claim of 20 December 2004 and the Career Development Report in respect of the applicant for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

               3.

               hold the European Community non-contractually liable on account of the contested decision and the drawing up of the applicant's Career Development Report;

               4.

               award the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 250 000 for damage suffered;

               5.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official at the Commission, claims to be a victim of bullying by her superiors which consisted of isolating her professionally, discrediting her and damaging her health by psychologically destabilising her.
   By these proceedings she challenges, first, the Commission's implied refusal of her request for assistance and protection from bullying pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and, second, her Career Development Report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003.
   The applicant also claims an infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, together with infringement of the duty to render assistance, the duty of sound administration and the duty to pay due regard to the welfare of employees.
   As regards the Career Development Report, she claims manifest errors of assessment and an infringement of procedural rules.


title: Case T-210/17: Action brought on 6 April 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/40

         Action brought on 6 April 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)
   (Case T-210/17)
   (2017/C 161/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented by: M.D. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘TRIPLE TURBO’ — Application for registration No 13 140 207

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 in Case R 119/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-7/11: Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Bank Melli Iran v Council

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/30

         Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Bank Melli Iran v Council
   (Case T-7/11)
   2011/C 63/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Melli Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1) and paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (2) and annul the decision contained in the letter of the Council of 28 October 2010;

               —

               declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision of 26 July 2010 (3) and Article 16(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) (EU) No 961/2010 illegal and inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 215 (2) and (3) TFUE as well as Article 40 TEU what constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural requirement since:

                           —

                           the Council CFSP has adopted the restrictive measures without leaving any power of appraisal to the Council;

                           —

                           Decision 2010/413/CFSP on which Regulation No 961/2010 is based, is erroneously based on Article 29 TEU, since it does not define the approach of the Union to a particular matter or a geographical or thematic nature, as required by Article 29 TUE, but fixes precise obligations for the Member States and persons under their jurisdiction;

                           —

                           Regulation No 961/2010 does not contain the necessary provisions on legal safeguards in violation of Article 215 (3) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of the European Union legislator in the choice of the legal basis for the challenged decision and regulation, since the sanctions were adopted against the applicant and its affiliates, being legal persons and not State entities not listed by the UNSC. In this regard, the applicant submits that:

                           —

                           although the basis of Article 29 TUE and 215 TFUE are justified when the Union institutions are enforcing the UN Resolution, they are not necessarily justified when administrative measures such as the freezing of funds of legal persons and non State entities are adopted;

                           —

                           the contested acts had to be adopted on the basis of Article 75 TFUE, thus involving the European Parliament in the framework of the co-decision procedure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and regulation were adopted in violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, since the similar decisions were adopted on another legal basis such as Article 75 TFUE, and thus with a framework containing judicial guarantees adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, which was not the case for the contested acts concerning the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts have been adopted in violation of the applicant’s rights of defence and, in particular, its right to have a fair hearing since:

                           —

                           the applicant did not receive any evidence or documents to support the allegations of the Council, since additional allegation made in 2009 to the 2008 decision, and confirmed in 2010, were very vague, unclear, arguably impossible for the applicant to respond to;

                           —

                           the applicant was refused an access to the documentation and the right to be heard;

                           —

                           the sufficient reasoning was not provided in regard to the contested acts, what violates the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts, for the same reasons as stated regarding the fourth plea in law, constitute the violation of the principles of sound administration and of legitimate expectations.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to communicate its decision including the grounds for listing, in violation of Article 36.3 infringing as well Article 36.4 of the regulation No 961/2010, which provides for the review of the decision when observations are submitted.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of interpretation and a misuse of powers in the application of the Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 to the applicant, since the Council gave a wrong interpretation to its Article 20(1)(b) when deciding that the applicant’s activities, as described in the contested acts, fulfil the conditions to be considered as the activities that should be sanctioned.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the right of property, since the Council has not taken into account the decision of the United Nations Security Council what should result in inapplicability of Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010.

      (1)  OJ L 281, p. 81

      (2)  OJ L 281, p. 1

      (3)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP: of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ L 195, p. 39


title: Case C-291/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Belgium) — Francesco Guarnieri & Cie v Vandevelde Eddy VOF (Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Cautio judicatum solvi — Company governed by Monegasque law — First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Belgium) — Francesco Guarnieri & Cie v Vandevelde Eddy VOF
   (Case C-291/09) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Cautio judicatum solvi - Company governed by Monegasque law - First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU)
   2011/C 160/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francesco Guarnieri & Cie

      Defendant: Vandevelde Eddy VOF

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC — Whether security for costs and damages (cautio judicatum solvi) is an infringement of Community rules in relation to the free movement of goods

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from requiring the provision of security pending judgment, by a claimant of Monegasque nationality which has brought proceedings before one of the civil courts of that State against a national of that State in order to obtain payment of invoices relating to the delivery of goods assimilated to Community goods, although such a requirement is not imposed on nationals of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-21/16: Action brought on 19 January 2016 — Karl Conzelmann v OHIM (LIKE IT)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/55

         Action brought on 19 January 2016 — Karl Conzelmann v OHIM (LIKE IT)
   (Case T-21/16)
   (2016/C 098/71)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Karl Conzelmann GmbH & Co. KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘LIKE IT’ — Application No 13 180 104

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2015 in Case R 223/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(2) of that regulation.


title: Case F-43/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Centurione v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Social security — Accident — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Common rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Setting of the degree of partial permanent invalidity — Report of the Medical Committee — Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure — Absolute bar to proceeding — Lack of concordance between the action and the claim — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/41

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Centurione v Commission
   (Case F-43/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Common rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Setting of the degree of partial permanent invalidity - Report of the Medical Committee - Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure - Absolute bar to proceeding - Lack of concordance between the action and the claim - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 262/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fernando Centurione (Nivelles, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission recognising only a partial rate of permanent invalidity of 2 % following the accident at work suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015, p. 29.


title: Case C-82/04 P: Appealbrought on 20 February 2004 (fax: 18 February 2004) by Audi AG against the judgment delivered on 3 December 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instanceof the European Communities in Case T-16/02 between Audi AG and the Officefor Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/21

         Appeal brought on 20 February 2004 (fax: 18 February 2004) by Audi AG against the judgment delivered on 3 December 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-16/02 between Audi AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-82/04 P)
   (2004/C 106/38)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 December 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-16/02 between Audi AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 February 2004 (fax: 18 February 2004) by Audi AG, represented by Rechtsanwälte Preu Bohlig & Partner, Leopoldstr. 11a, D-80802 Munich.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2003 in Case T-16/02 (1) insofar as the action was dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay the costs;

               2.

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 November 2001 in Case R 652/2001-1;

               3.

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Infringement of Community law in the application of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark: (3)

               —

               The judgment under appeal is based on a misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. It is founded on the finding made at the previous instances that the combination of letters ‘TDI’ stands for ‘Turbo Diesel Injection’ or ‘Turbo Direct Injection’. That finding is inconsistent with the substantive provisions of Article 7(1)(c) and was made in breach of the relevant procedural principles. Neither at the previous instances nor in the judgment under appeal were any statements made or reasons given as to where and how ‘TDI’ is used in normal language. The findings as to what terms the relevant public imagines the combination of letters ‘TDI’ to stand for and thus associate with the sign ‘TDI’ remain pure speculation. In the present case, no specific association in the minds of the relevant public between the sign ‘TDI’ and the goods/services in question can be identified. Therefore, the conclusion that registration of the sign ‘TDI’ is precluded by the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 constitutes an error in law.

               —

               The reasons given by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal with respect to the appellant's complaint that the refusal to register the mark TDI infringes Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 likewise constitute errors in law. No reasons are given with respect to the assessment of the degree of market acceptance. There is also a lack of reasoning in the judgment under appeal insofar as it is claimed in general terms that the facts found are insufficient to prove that the mark sought has become distinctive as a result of use in the Member States other than Germany. At no point in the judgment is that claim substantiated.

               —

               The judgment under appeal and the decisions of OHIM on which it is based infringe the principle of ex proprio motu investigation and the principle derived therefrom that the question whether there are grounds for refusing an application for registration is to be determined on the basis of an examination of the specific circumstances of the individual case. The applicable principle of ex proprio motu investigation entails an obligation of the authority to determine how a word mark will be understood by the relevant public and to substantiate its finding by reference to the specific circumstances of the case. In the present case, that principle has been infringed to the detriment of the appellant.

      (1)  Not yet published in the European Court Reports.

      (2)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1.


title: Case T-37/13: Action brought on 22 January 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/23

         Action brought on 22 January 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)
   (Case T-37/13)
   2013/C 86/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Exakt Advanced Technologies GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bismarck, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd (Aberdeen, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 October 2012 in Case R 1764/2011-1;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word element ‘EXAKT’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9 and 37 — Community trade mark No 3 996 592

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the figurative mark including the word element ‘EXAKT’ for goods in Classes 7, 8 and 9

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-104/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 27 February 2017 — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 27 February 2017 — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-104/17)
   (2017/C 168/29)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Pitești

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC Cali Esprou SRL

      Respondent: Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Question referred

   Can Article 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (1) be interpreted as precluding the adoption, in a Member State of the European Union, of legislation that imposes a contribution payable by the economic operator which places packaged goods and packaging on the market, without in any way altering the goods or packaging, and sells them in the same form to an economic operator which, in turn, sells them on to the final consumer, the amount of the contribution being fixed per kilogram (kg), on the basis of the difference between, on the one hand, the quantities of packaging waste corresponding to the minimum targets for recovery or incineration in waste incineration plants with energy recovery and waste recycling facilities, and, on the other, the quantities of packaging waste actually recovered or incinerated in waste incineration plants with energy recovery and waste recycling facilities?

      (1)  European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).


title: Case C-245/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 15 June 2001 in the case of RTL Television GmbH against Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk

text:
13.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/9
—    Failure to examine the principles of ‘dolo agit, qui petit,        2.    What criteria must be satisfied for a broadcast of several
     quod statim redditurus est’ and ‘fraus omnia corrumpit’.                 feature films and films made for television to be classified
     In the absence of a legally operative judgment imposing                  as a ‘serial’, derogating from the advertising restrictions
     a penalty the Commission is able to rely only on existing                for feature films and films made for television?
     suspicions and results of investigations, as soon as, and
     in so far as, these are available. This the Commission did         3.    Are broadcasts consisting of several parts which manifest
     in the present proceedings. By excluding, as a legal                     a common concept due to common features of theme,
     objection, application of the legal principle ‘fraus omnia               content and form, and which are broadcast at connected
     corrumpit’ in conjunction with the legal principle ‘dolo                 times, to be regarded as a ‘serial’ for the purposes of
     agit, qui petit, quod statim redditurus est’, in a case such             Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by
     as the present (but without having examined that issue in                Directive 97/36/EEC?
     any detail), and instead calling for the adoption of a new
     decision with a fresh statement of reasons, the Court of           4.    Does the interpretation of the term ‘serial’ for the
     First Instance is in effect obliging the Commission to pay               purposes of Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC as
     so long as its suspicions have not developed into                        amended by Directive 97/36/EEC permit common points
     incontrovertible certainty. As a general rule, however,                  of theme or content of the episodes to be wholly or
     any subsequent claim for repayment would fail on the                     largely regarded as unnecessary and predominantly points
     ground that the debtor has disappeared, no longer has                    of form or form of reception taken as the criterion?
     assets or has become insolvent.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.                    (2) OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
                                                                        Feldkirch by order of that court of 22 June 2001 in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsi-                 the commercial register cases of (1) Hermann Pfanner
sches Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of                  Getränke Gesellschaft mbH and Others and (2) Getränke-
15 June 2001 in the case of RTL Television GmbH against                 betrieb Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Republic of
Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rund-                                               Austria
                                funk
                                                                                (Case C-248/01)
                          (Case C-245/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/17)
                         (2001/C 289/16)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch), Austria, of 22 June
European Communities by order of the Niedersächsisches                  2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Lower Saxony Higher Administrative              2001, for a preliminary ruling in the commercial register cases
Court) of 15 June 2001, which was received at the Court                 of (1) Hermann Pfanner Getränke Gesellschaft mbH and
Registry on 25 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case          Others and (2) Getränkebetrieb Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others
of RTL Television GmbH against Niedersachsische Landesme-               v Republic of Austria on the following questions on the
dienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk on the following questions:           validity of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC (1) and the
                                                                        Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC (2):
1.   Does Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC(1) of
     3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions           1.    Is the obligation of general disclosure of the annual
     laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in                 accounts of every capital company regardless of its
     Member States concerning the pursuit of television                       economic circumstances compatible with the fundamental
     broadcasting activities as amended by Directive 97/36/EC                 and human rights guaranteed in Community law, funda-
     of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) of                     mental freedoms and general principles of law of the
     30 June 1997, by restricting advertising breaks, pursue                  Member States, in particular the rights to data protection,
     the objective of protecting the artistic value of feature                freedom of expression, informational self-determination,
     films and films made for television, irrespective of                     private life, protection of business and commercial sec-
     whether films made for television have from the outset                   rets, property and freedom to carry on a trade, private
     been produced for television and provided with breaks                    autonomy and compliance with the requirement of
     designed for the insertion of advertising spots?                         reasonableness (proportionality)?


title: Case C-123/99: Action brought on 13 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
3.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 188/13
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      — Failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the
                                                                           judgment: the Court of First Instance was unable, without
                                                                           running up against the appellant’s arguments, to reject the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            plea concerning the unique nature of a person’s status,
                                                                           which is a separate plea from that of breach of the principle
                                                                           of equal treatment.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC         — Disregard of the principle of conferred powers: neither the
Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives                Community legislature nor the Community institutions
into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for            may fix, alter or interpret the civil status of officials in their
that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately                 service.
to the Commission. That period expired on 31 July 1997
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue          — Breach of the principle of the unique nature of the personal
into national law.                                                         status of Community nationals: the appellant’s personal
                                                                           status is governed by Swedish law, according to which a
                                                                           registered partner is to be regarded as a married person.
(1) OJ No L 169, 27.6.1997, p. 72.
                                                                      — Breach of the principles of freedom of movement for
                                                                           workers, equal treatment and non-discrimination.
                                                                      — Infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on
                                                                           Human Rights: the protection of a person’s private life
                                                                           entails recognition of the existence and effects of a lawfully
                                                                           acquired civil status. The Court of First Instance was wrong
                                                                           to refer to the judgment in Grant (1), since that case
Appeal brought on 13 April 1999 by D against the                           concerned a relationship which was not formally recog-
judgment delivered on 28 January 1999 by the Second                        nised.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-264/97 between D, supported by
the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European
                                                                      (1) Jugdment of the Court of Justice of 17 February 1998 in Case
                             Union                                        C-249/96.
                       (Case C-122/99 P)
                        (1999/C 188/29)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 1999
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-264/97 between D,                  Action brought on 13 April 1999 by the Commission of
supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the            the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 13 April 1999 by D, represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                                       (Case C-123/99)
Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                (1999/C 188/30)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 April
    European Communities (Second Chamber) of 28 January               1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    1999 in Case T-264/97 D, supported by the Kingdom of              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
    Sweden, v Council of the European Union                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                      Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
— order the respondent to pay the costs of both sets of               Kirchberg.
    proceedings.
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       1. declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations
                                                                           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
— The Court of First Instance unlawfully altered the subject-              European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1)
    matter of the action by confining itself to an examination             of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste,
    of the question whether it was legally open to the Council,            or by not adopting the necessary measures to comply
    by way of an autonomous interpretation, to treat a                     therewith, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
    registered partnership as equivalent to a marriage.                    obligations under the Treaty and that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/14              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                      Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, by order of that
                                                                      court of 30 March 1999 in the case of Johann Kappel v
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
The Member States are required by the binding character of                                     (Case C-128/99)
the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC
Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives
into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for                                (1999/C 188/32)
that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately
to the Commission. That period expired on 30 June 1996
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichtsh-
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
                                                                      of (Supreme Court), Austria, of 30 March 1999, which was
into national law.
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1999, for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Kappel v Pensionsver-
(1) OJ No L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.                                   sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter, on the following questions:
                                                                      1. Is Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) to be interpreted
                                                                           as allowing Member States to determine different pension-
                                                                           able ages only for pension rights which are granted
                                                                           exclusively on the basis of the risk of old age, or is that
                                                                           derogation applicable also to pension rights which are
                                                                           granted only from a specified age but in addition are
Appeal brought on 15 April 1999 by the Kingdom of                          granted only on account of invalidity (reduced capacity for
Sweden against the judgment delivered on 28 January                        work)?
1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-264/97
between D, supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and                    2. Is Article 7(1)(a) and (2) of Directive 79/7/EEC to be
              the Council of the European Union                            interpreted as allowing a Member State to alter a previously
                                                                           existing identical provision on pensionable age (in this case
                                                                           completion of the 55th year for men and women) after the
                       (Case C-125/99 P)                                   end of the transposition period, in such a way that a
                                                                           different pensionable age for men and women (in this case
                        (1999/C 188/31)                                    completion of the 57th year for men and the 55th year for
                                                                           women) is now determined?
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 1999
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-264/97 between D,                  (1) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the
European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Kingdom
of Sweden, represented by Lotty Nordling, Legal Adviser, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy,
2 Rue Heinrich Heine.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 15 April 1999 by the Federal Republic
                                                                      of Germany against the Commission of the European
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and                                     Communities
    declare void the decision of the Council refusing to grant
    the benefits claimed by D;
                                                                                (Case C-129/99)
— order the Council to reimburse the costs incurred by
    Sweden in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
                                                                                (1999/C 188/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Disregard of Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in      Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Federal Republic of
that a meaning has been applied to the expressions ‘married’          Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing and Claus-
and ‘spouse’ which does not take into account the family              Dieter Quassowski, Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Postfach
situation and civil status of officials under the national            13 08, D-53003 Bonn.
legislation applicable to them, and inasmuch as officials living
in a situation of registered partnership are not treated in the
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
same way as married officials.
                                                                      •    annul the Commission Decision of 3 February 1999 —
                                                                           C(99)209 final — on the clearance of the accounts