title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Belfast, by direction of that court of 4 June 1997, in the case of Jennifer Gregg and Mervyn Gregg against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-216/97)

text:
No C 228/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         26 . 7. 97
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       1 . Is Article 13 ( A) ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive (') to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that two natural persons ( i.e.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          individuals) who carry on business in common as
                                                                             partners        cannot         claim     exemption        under
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                   subparagraph ( b ) in the circumstances summarized in
a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,               the schedule to these questions and on the assumptions
upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under                       that :
Article 395 and Annex XXXVI of the Act concerning the
conditions of accession of the Portuguese Republic to the                    ( i ) the business consists of medical care and closely
                                                                                related activities:
European Communities, Directive 75/440/EEC is
applicable in Portugal as from 1 January 1989; the period                           and
for the entry into force of the necessary provisions of
domestic law thus expired on that date . Despite the                         ( ii ) they are 'duly recognized' and their activities are
prescribed periods having expired, the Portuguese                                   of a similar nature to those provided by ' hospitals'
Republic has nevertheless failed to adopt a systematic plan                         and/or     'centres     for   medical  treatment        or
of action including a timetable for the improvement of                              diagnosis '?
surface water, especially that falling within category A3 .
(') OJ No L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 26 .
                                                                             In particular, are            the  partners  excluded      from
                                                                             exemption because :
                                                                             ( a ) they do not constitute a ' body' governed by public
                                                                                law;
                                                                              ( b ) their activities are not undertaken under social
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                          conditions comparable to those applicable to
di Bologna, Sezione Lavoro, by order of that court of                               bodies governed by public law ?
16 April 1997 in the case of Barbara Bellone against
                          Yokohama SpA
                                                                        2 . Is Article 13 (A) ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive to be
                         ( Case C-215 /97 )
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that two natural persons
                            ( 97/C 228/20 )                                   ( i.e. individuals ) who carry on business in common
                                                                              as partners cannot claim exemption under
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        subparagraph (g) in the circumstances summarized in
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di                      the schedule to these questions and on the assumption
Bologna, Sezione Lavoro ( District Civil Court of Bologna,                    that the services they supply are 'closely linked to
Employment Division ) of 16 April 1997, received at the                       welfare and social security work, including those
 Court Registry on 9 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                   supplied by old people's homes'?
the case of Barbara Bellone v. Yokohame SpA on the
following question:                                                     (') Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
Is Directive 86/653/EEC (') compatible with Articles 2 and                  uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977 , p. 1 ).
 9 of Italian Law No 204 of 3 May 1985 , which make the
 validity of agency contracts conditional upon commercial
 agents being entered in the appropriate register ?
 (') OJ No L 382 , 31 . 12 . 198 , p . 17 .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 9 June 1997 by the Council of the
                                                                        European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                         16 April 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities in Case T-80/96
                                                                         between Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus and Council
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
 Tribunal, Belfast, by direction of that court of 4 June                                         of the European Union
 1997, in the case of Jennifer Gregg and Mervyn Gregg                                              ( Case C-218/97 P )
      against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                                                 ( 97/C 228/22 )
                          ( Case C-216/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/21 )
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 April
                                                                         1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  of the European Communities in Case T-80/96 between
 European Communities by direction of the VAT and                        Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus and Council of the
 Duties Tribunal, Belfast, of 4 June 1997, which was                     European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
 received at the Court Registry on 9 June 1997, for a                    of the European Communities on 9 June 1997 by the
 preliminary ruling in the case of Jennifer Gregg and                    Council of the European Union, represented by Amadeu
 Mervyn Gregg against the Commissioners of Customs and                   Lopes Sabino, Diego Canga Fano and Therese Blanchet, of
 Excise , on the following questions :                                   its Legal Servie, with an address for service in


title: Case T-571/08 RENV: Order of the General Court of 10 May 2012 — Germany v Commission

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/20

         Order of the General Court of 10 May 2012 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-571/08 RENV) (1)

   2012/C 200/41
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 4 March 1997 in Case C-46/96: Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European Communities (No need to give a decision)

text:
No C 166/4           | EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       31 . 5 . 97
which had itself prolonged the validity of the Community                References for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
framework on State aid to the motor vehicle industry —                  München I by orders of that court of 8 January 1997 in
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. E Mancini,                  the cases of WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und
President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                      Vertriebs GmbH v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),                      and WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Ver
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-                                     triebs GmbH v. Franz Attenberger
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                   ( Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97)
given a judgment on 15 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/07 )
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision, notified by letter of
      6 July 1995, to prolong, with retroactive effect from             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      1 January 1995, the Commission decision of                        European Communities by two orders of the Landgericht
      23 December 1992 which had itself prolonged the                   München I ( Munich I Regional Court) of 8 January 1997,
      validity of the Community framework on State aid to               which were received at the Court Registry on 14 March
      the motor vehicle industry;                                       1997, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of WSC
                                                                        Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
                                                                        v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and WSC
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
                                                                        v. Franz Attenberger on the following questions:
0 ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                        1 . Questions on Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) ('):
                                                                             Is Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) to be understood as meaning that it
                                                                             suffices if there is a possibility of the designation being
                                                                             used to indicate the geographical origin, or must that
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                        possibility be likely in the particular case ( in the sense
                          of 4 March 1997                                    that other such undertakings already use that word to
                                                                             designate the geographical origin of their goods of
in Case C-46/96: Federal Republic of Germany v.                              similar type, or at least that there are specific reasons
         Commission of the European Communities ( J )                        to believe that that may be expected in the foreseeable
                   (No need to give a decision)                              future ), or must there even be a need to use that
                                                                             designation to indicate the geographical origin of the
                             ( 97/C 166/06 )                                 goods in question, or must there in addition also be a
                                                                             qualified need for the use of that indication of origin,
                (Language of the case: German)                               for instance because goods of that kind, produced in
                                                                             that region, enjoy a special reputation ?
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                          Is it of significance for a broader or narrower
                                                                             interpretation of Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) with respect to
                                                                             geographical indications of origin that the effects of
 In Case C-46/96 : Federal Republic of Germany ( Agent:                      the mark are restricted under Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b )?
 Ernst Röder) against Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents: Anders Christian Jessen and Paul F.                   Do geographical indications of origin under Article 3
 Nemitz, with Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch )                        ( 1 ) (c ) cover only those which relate to the
 — application for annulment of Decision C(95 ) 3319 final                   manufacture of the goods at that place, or does trade
 of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning                            in those goods at that place or from that place suffice,
 fiscal aid in the field of depreciation favouring German                    or in the case of the production of textiles does it
 undertakings — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez                       suffice if they are designed in the region designated
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                        but then manufactured under contract elsewhere ?
 Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
 ( Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                         2 . Questions on the first sentence of Article 3 (3):
 Schintgen, Judges; Advocate-General, D. Ruiz-Jarabo
 Colomer; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 4 March                      What requirements follow from this provision for the
 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :                            registrability of a descriptive designation under
                                                                              Article 3 ( 1 ) ( c )?
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                              In particular, are the requirements the same in all
                                                                              cases, or are the requirements different according to
 2 . The Commission shall pay the costs.                                      the degree of the need to leave free ?
  (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                           Is in particular the view hitherto taken in the German
                                                                              case-law, namely that in the case of descriptive
                                                                               designations which need to be left free, trade


title: Case T-552/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Oil Turbo Compressor v Council

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/19

         Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Oil Turbo Compressor v Council
   (Case T-552/13)
   2013/C 359/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul point 48 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in so far as those measures concern the applicant;

               —

               annul point 103 of Table B of Annex VIII to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, in so far as those measures concern the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Manifest error of appraisal of the facts on which the Council decision is based
               In the context of this plea, the applicant argues inter alia that the contested legal acts were obviously decided on the basis of incorrect assumptions and are contrary to the judgments of the General Court in Case T-63/12 Oil Turbo Compressor v Council [2012] ECR II-0000 and Case T-404/11 TCMFG v Council [2013] ECR II-0000. The applicant submits that there are no facts which could sufficiently substantiate and justify the defendant’s decision and the consequent infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights.

               2.

               Infringement of the rule-of-law principle of proportionality
               According to the applicant, there is an infringement of the principle of proportionality because its inclusion in the contested legal acts bears no apparent relation to the objective of those legal acts, which is to prevent proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, the trade in and/or development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or other weapons systems by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The defendant also fails to show that the applicant’s exclusion from trade with the European Union is reasonable, in particular the least intrusive measure, in order to obtain the intended objective. The applicant further complains that the major interference with its fundamental rights was obviously not measured against the objective supposedly pursued by the defendant.

               3.

               Infringement of rule-of-law principles
               In this regard it is claimed that the defendant failed to provide sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested legal acts. The defendant does not refer to the facts or evidence allegedly in its possession. The applicant also submits that, as it is not aware of any facts or evidence which could justify the contested legal acts, and as the defendant is withholding any information, the applicant is being denied a fair hearing in accordance with rule-of-law principles. The applicant’s application for access to the case-file has so far not been granted. The applicant further complains that the defendant adheres to the contested legal acts despite the judgments cited above.


title: Case C-124/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg, by order of thatcourt of 4 February 2004 in the case of IndustriasNucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against Texas Utilities Electric Corporation

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg, by order of that court of 4 February 2004 in the case of Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against Texas Utilities Electric Corporation
   (Case C-124/04)
   (2004/C 106/58)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg of 4 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S.A. and Siemens AG against Texas Utilities Electric Corporation on the following questions:

               1.

               Do the terms ‘processing, conversion or shaping’ in the first paragraph of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty also encompass the enrichment of uranium?

               2.

               Does an undertaking having its seat outside the territory of the EAEC Treaty pursue all or any of its activities in the territory of the Euratom Community within the meaning of Article 196 (b) of the EAEC Treaty if it maintains with an undertaking having its seat in the territory of the Euratom Community a commercial relationship for

                           (a)

                           the supply of raw material for the production of enriched uranium by, and the procurement of enriched uranium from, the undertaking having its seat in the territory of the Euratom Community

                           (b)

                           the storage thereof with another undertaking having its seat in the territory of the Euratom Community?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Does Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty require the material supplied for processing, conversion or shaping and the material subsequently returned to be identical in substance, apart from the physical changes associated with those processes?

                           (b)

                           Or is it sufficient for the processed material to be commensurate in terms of quantity and quality with the material supplied?

                           (c)

                           Is the application of Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty precluded where the material returned cannot be attributed to any material supplied by the consignee?

                           (d)

                           Is the application of Article 75(c) of the EAEC Treaty precluded where the undertaking carrying out the process acquires title to the raw material on delivery and therefore has to transfer title to the enriched uranium back to the other contracting party on completion of the process?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Is the application of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty precluded if the persons or undertakings concerned do not fulfil their duty to notify the Euratom Supply Agency under the second paragraph of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty?

                           (b)

                           Can breach of the duty to notify the Euratom Supply Agency under the second paragraph of Article 75 of the EAEC Treaty be remedied by the persons or undertakings concerned subsequently fulfilling their duty to notify or by the Agency subsequently becoming cognisant in some other way?

               5.

                           (a)

                           Is an agreement or contract within the meaning of Article 73 of the EAEC Treaty invalid if the contracting parties do not obtain the prior consent of the European Commission required thereunder?

                           (b)

                           If so, can the invalidity of the transaction be remedied by the persons or undertakings concerned subsequently obtaining such consent or by the institutions of the Euratom Community failing to take action after becoming cognisant in some other way?

               6.

                           (a)

                           Is the disposal of materials within the meaning of Article 57 (1) of the EAEC Treaty prohibited if the producer does not fulfil his obligation to make an offer to the Euratom Supply Agency under the second sentence of Article 57 (2) of the EAEC Treaty?

                           (b)

                           Can breach of the duty to offer materials to the Euratom Supply Agency under the second sentence of Article 57 (2) of the EAEC Treaty be remedied by the producer subsequently fulfilling his duty to make an offer or by the Agency subsequently becoming cognisant in some other way and not exercising its right of option?

               7.

               Does the concept of production in Article 86 of the EAEC Treaty also encompass the enrichment of uranium?

               8.

               Are uranium and light-enriched uranium ‘source materials’ within the meaning of the last phrase of Article 197 (1) of the EAEC Treaty?

               9.

                           (a)

                           Can civil-law title under Paragraph 903 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, hereinafter the ‘BGB’) be acquired and transferred in respect of materials that have become the property of the Euratom Community under the first sentence of Article 86 of the EAEC Treaty?

                           (b)

                           Does the unlimited right of use and consumption afforded to holders of rights under Article 87 of the EAEC Treaty exist as a property or quasi-property interest sui generis alongside rights in rem under the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch of the Federal Republic of Germany?

               10.

               Does an undertaking pursue any of its activities in the territories of the Member States of the Euratom Community within the meaning of Article 196 (b) of the EAEC Treaty if it acquires or disposes of enriched uranium stored there?

               11.

               Does Article 73 of the EAEC Treaty also apply mutatis mutandis to agreements concerning enriched uranium stored within the territory of the Euratom Community where all of the parties are nationals of third States?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2001 in Case C-1/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Genova (Italy)]: Kofisa Italia Srl v Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia di Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — National legislation adopting Community provisions — Community Customs Code — Appeal — Mandatory nature of the two stages of the appeal — Suspension of implementation of a decision of the customs authorities)

text:
2.6.2001                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 161/3
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              e Penale di Genova (District Court, Genoa), Italy for a
court between Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Friedrich Stefan, in the presence of: Republik Österreich — on              court between Kofisa Italia Srl and Ministero delle Finanze,
the interpretation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now                      Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia
Article 56 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                         di Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA — on the
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet                     interpretation of Articles 243 and 244 of Council Regulation
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;                  (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,               Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January 2001,                  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
in which it has ruled:                                                       Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
                                                                             and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
1.    Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) is to be              General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      construed as precluding the application of national rules such         has given a judgment on 11 January 2001, in which it has
      as those at issue in the main proceedings, requiring a mortgage        ruled:
      securing a debt payable in the currency of another Member
      State to be registered in the national currency.                       1.    Article 243 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
                                                                                12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
2.    Article 73b of the Treaty is to be construed as meaning that it              is to be interpreted as meaning that it is for national law to
      did not apply in Austria prior to the date of accession of the               determine whether a trader must initially lodge an appeal before
      Republic of Austria to the European Union.                                   the customs authority or whether he may appeal directly to the
                                                                                judicial authority.
3.    Article 73b of the Treaty is to be construed as incapable of
      remedying, with effect from the entry into force of the EC Treaty      2.    Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92 is to be interpreted as
      in Austria, a mortgage registration which, under the relevant                meaning that it confers the power to suspend implementation
      national law, is vitiated from the outset by absolute and                    of a contested decision exclusively on the customs authorities.
      incurable nullity such as to render that registration non-existent.          However, that provision does not limit the power of the judicial
                                                                                authorities seised of a dispute pursuant to Article 243 of that
                                                                                regulation to order such suspension in order to comply with
(1) OJ C 71, 13.3.1999.                                                            their obligation to ensure the full effectiveness of Community
                                                                                law.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 71, 13.3.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 11 January 2001
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-1/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Genova (Italy)]: Kofisa                                              of 11 January 2001
Italia Srl v Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della Riscos-
sione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia di Genova —                        in Case C-226/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
             San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA (1)                            the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Genova (Italy)]: Siples Srl,
                                                                             in liquidation v Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the                    Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia di
Court — National legislation adopting Community pro-                               Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA (1)
visions — Community Customs Code — Appeal — Manda-
tory nature of the two stages of the appeal — Suspension of                  (Common Customs Code — Appeals — Suspension of
   implementation of a decision of the customs authorities)                     implementation of a decision of the customs authorities)
                           (2001/C 161/05)                                                              (2001/C 161/06)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-1/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  In Case C-226/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile


title: Case C-452/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute v Doc Generici Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Obligation to bring the matter before the Court of Justice — Approximation of laws — Proprietary medicinal products — Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation — Variation — Fees — Regulation (EC) No 297/95 — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 — Scope)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute v Doc Generici Srl
   (Case C-452/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Obligation to bring the matter before the Court of Justice - Approximation of laws - Proprietary medicinal products - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Variation - Fees - Regulation (EC) No 297/95 - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 - Scope))
   (2015/C 381/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute

      Defendant: Doc Generici Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Neither Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 on fees payable to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 273/2012 of 27 March 2012, nor Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 of 24 November 2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 712/2012 of 3 August 2012, requires a competent national authority to demand, in respect of the change of address of a marketing authorisation holder, payment of as many charges as there are marketing authorisations requiring variation, and nor do those regulations prohibit such an authority from demanding such payment.

               2)

               Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is required, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to comply with its obligation to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-429/17: Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Laboratoires Majorelle v EUIPO — Jardin Majorelle (LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/33

         Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Laboratoires Majorelle v EUIPO — Jardin Majorelle (LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE)
   (Case T-429/17)
   (2017/C 309/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires Majorelle (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Odinot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jardin Majorelle (Marrakech, Morocco)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE’ — Application for registration No 11 371 655

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 in Case R 1238/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               grant registration of the Community trade mark ‘LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE’ in respect of:
               Class 3: Soaps; Cosmetics; Cosmetics; Washing preparations for personal deodorising purposes or personal hygiene; Cosmetic preparations for skin care; Non-medicated skin care preparations; Skin cleaning preparations; Skin conditioners;
               Class 5: Pharmaceutical preparations for skin care; Dietetic substances adapted for medical use; Medicinal herbs; Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements; Dietetic supplements for medical purposes; Health food supplements; Pharmaceutical preparations;
               Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments, artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; Orthopaedic articles; Suture materials; Surgical apparatus and instruments; Medical apparatus and instruments;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 in the light of the existence of the earlier rights on which the opposition is based, the examination of the evidence of genuine use of the earlier trade marks, and the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-81/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014  — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Coordination of social security systems — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Council decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Association Council — Choice of legal basis — Article 48 TFEU — Article 79(2)(b) TFEU — Article 217 TFEU)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-81/13) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Coordination of social security systems - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Council decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Association Council - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU - Article 217 TFEU))
   (2015/C 065/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, C. Murrell, E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi Spencer, Agents, and A. Dashwood QC)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: L. Williams, Agent, and N. Travers, BL)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and M. Chavrier, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, J. Enegren and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-688/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — proceedings brought by Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés SL, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Transfer of an undertaking — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Interpretation of Directive 2001/23/EC — Transferor the subject of insolvency proceedings — Guarantee that the transferee is not to be liable for certain debts of the undertaking transferred)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — proceedings brought by Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés SL, in liquidation
   (Case C-688/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Transfer of an undertaking - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Interpretation of Directive 2001/23/EC - Transferor the subject of insolvency proceedings - Guarantee that the transferee is not to be liable for certain debts of the undertaking transferred))
   (2015/C 146/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés SL, in liquidation

      Intervening parties: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               where, in the context of the transfer of an undertaking, the transferor is the subject of insolvency proceedings which are under the supervision of a competent public authority and where the Member State concerned has chosen to make use of Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/23, that provision does not preclude that Member State from providing, or permitting, that charges payable by the transferor, on the date of the transfer or the opening of the insolvency proceedings, as a result of contracts of employment or employment relationships — including charges relating to the statutory social security system — are not to be transferred to the transferee, provided that such proceedings ensure a level of protection for employees which is at least equivalent to that established by Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, but nor is that Member State prevented from providing that such charges are to be borne by the transferee, even where the transferor is insolvent,

               —

               subject to Article 3(4)(b) of that directive, Directive 2001/23 does not lay down any obligations relating to the charges payable by the transferor as a result of contracts of employment or employment relationships which have come to an end before the date of transfer, but nor does it preclude national legislation under which such charges may be transferred to the transferee.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case T-259/09: Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Commission v Arci Nuova Associazione Comitato di Cagliari and Gessa

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/34

         Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Commission v Arci Nuova Associazione Comitato di Cagliari and Gessa
   (Case T-259/09)
   2009/C 220/73
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. Moretto, lawyer, and A.M. Rouchaud-Joët and N. Bambara, Agents)

      Defendant: Arci Nuova Associazione Comitato di Cagliari (Cagliari, Italy), Alberto Gessa (Cagliari, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               An order that Arci Nuova Associazione Comitato di Cagliari and Alberto Gessa should, in their personal capacities and jointly and severally, repay the principal sum of EUR 15 675,00 owing, together with default interest at the rate of 7,32 %, running from 20 May 2007 until full and final payment of the sum owed;

               —

               an order that Arci Nuova Associazione Comitato di Cagliari and Alberto Gessa should, in their personal capacities and jointly and severally, pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action the applicant seeks an order that the abovementioned association and, jointly, its chairman, should pay a sum equivalent to the advance paid by the applicant for performance of the action ‘ONG-2003-204-Cagliari-ARCI-l’Europa dei Migranti’. That action consists of a series of IT and documentation activities in the languages of the various countries of provenance, relating to the European institutions, the decision-making process, the stages in building and enlarging Europe, for the purpose of making the integration of migrants easier.
   The agreement imposed an obligation to send, within a certain period, the final report regarding the performance of the action, the final financial accounts of the eligible costs actually incurred, and the full statement of the income and expenditure relating to the action.
   That obligation not having been fulfilled, the Commission has decided to bring this action.


title: Case C-437/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht München by order of that court of 11 February 2000 in the case of Giulia Pugliese against Finmeccanica s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division

text:
24.2.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 61/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Community law does not preclude legislation of a Member State
                                                                             laying down that, in tax matters, an action for recovery of a sum
                                                                             paid but not due based on a finding by a national or Community
                          (First Chamber)                                    court that a national rule is not compatible with a superior rule of
                                                                             national law or with a Community rule of law may only relate to the
                      of 28 November 2000                                    period following 1 January of the fourth year preceding that of the
                                                                             judgment establishing such incompatibility.
in Case C-88/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Béthune): Roquette
                                                                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Frères SA v Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-
                              Calais (1)
(Recovery of sums paid but not due — National procedural
      rules — Capital duty levied in respect of a merger)
                           (2001/C 61/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
                                                                             gericht München by order of that court of 11 February
                                                                             2000 in the case of Giulia Pugliese against Finmeccanica
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                     s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-88/99: reference to the Court under Article1 177 of                                         (Case C-437/00)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Béthune, (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Roquette                                          (2001/C 61/02)
Frères SA and Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais
— to ascertain whether Community law prohibits national tax
legislation which provides that an action for recovery of a sum              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
paid but not due, based on a judicial decision declaring a rule              European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
of law incompatible with a higher-ranking rule, may relate                   München (Higher Labour Court, Munich) of 11 February 2000,
only to the period following 1 January of the fourth year                    received at the Court Registry on 27 November 2000, for a
preceding that of the judgment establishing such incompati-                  preliminary ruling in the case of Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica
bility — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet                 s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division on the following questions
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón,               concerning the interpretation of the EC Convention on
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Brussels
on 28 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                  Convention’; OJ 1990 C 189, p. 2):
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/2                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
1.    In a dispute between an Italian national and a company            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      established under Italian law having its registered office        Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, by
      in Italy arising from a contract of employment concluded          judgment of that court of 28 June and 6 July 2000, in the
      between them which designates Turin as the place of               case of Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against
      work, is Munich the place where the employee habitually           Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
      carries out his work under the second half-sentence of                  A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for Agricultural Policy
      Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention where, from the
      outset, the contract of employment is temporarily placed                                  (Case C-451/00)
      on non-active status at the request of the employee and,
      during that period, the employee carries out work, with                                    (2001/C 61/04)
      the consent of the Italian employer, but on the basis of a
      separate contract of employment, for a company estab-
      lished under German law at its registered office in Munich,       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the duration of which the Italian employer assumes            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      the obligation to provide accommodation in Munich or              strativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, of 28 June and
      to bear the costs of such accommodation and to bear the           6 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on 8 December
      costs of two journeys home each year from Munich to               2000, for a the preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda
      the employee’s native country?                                    Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against Azienda di Stato per gli
                                                                        interventi nel mereato agricolo A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for
                                                                        Agricultural Policy on the following questions:
2.    If the first question is answered in the negative, may the
      employee, in a legal dispute with her Italian employer            (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
      arising from the contract of employment, rely, with                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
      reference to the payment of rental costs and travel costs               1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
      for the two journeys home each year, on the argument                    (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
      that the court having jurisdiction is that for the place of             meaning that it is possible, in the case of Community
      performance of the obligation in question, pursuant to                  law proceedings and the subsequent compliance of the
      the first half-sentence of Article 5(1) of the Brussels                 Member State to derogate from the time-limits prescribed
      Convention?                                                             for the allocation of quotas and the operation of adjust-
                                                                              ments and levies?
                                                                        If not,
                                                                        (2) Are those provisions of Community law valid, in the light
                                                                              of Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do
                                                                              not provide for derogation from the periods prescribed
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                       for allocation and adjustments in the abovementioned
gericht Hamm by order of that court of 15 November                            case of Community law proceedings?
2000 in the case of Deutscher Handballbund e.V. v Maros
                               Kolpak
                                                                        (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 is
                          (Case C-438/00)                                   meant (OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12).
                           (2001/C 61/03)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court) Hamm, Germany, of 15 November
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 Novem-             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutscher             Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of that court
Handballbund e.V. v Maros Kolpak on the following question:             of 1 November 2000 in the case of Kühne & Heitz N.V.
                                                                               against Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Meren
Is it contrary to Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement
                                                                                (Case C-453/00)
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak
Republic, of the other part — Final Act — if a sports                                            (2001/C 61/05)
association applies to a professional sportsman of Slovak
nationality a rule it has adopted under which clubs may play            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in championship and cup matches only a limited number of                European Communities by a decision of the College van
players who come from third countries not belonging to the              Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
European Communities?                                                   and Industry) of 1 November 2000, which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 11 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Kühne Heitz N.V. v Produktschap voor Pluimvee
                                                                        en Eieren on the following question:


title: Case T-214/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2007 — Vounakis v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Career Development Report — 2003 Evaluation exercise — Definition of goals to achieve — Duty to state reasons — Inconsistency between points and comments — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2007 — Vounakis v Commission
   (Case T-214/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Career Development Report - 2003 Evaluation exercise - Definition of goals to achieve - Duty to state reasons - Inconsistency between points and comments - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2008/C 8/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Hippocrate Vounakis (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 13 July 2004 adopting the applicant's definitive career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decision of 13 July 2004 adopting the career development report in respect of Mr Hippocrate Vounakis for the period from 1 January until 31 December 2003 as far as concerns the heading ‘Productivity’;

               2.

               dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case C-294/09: Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/30

         Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-294/09)
   2009/C 220/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun, A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 29 June 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 157, p. 87


title: Removal from the register of C-331/95

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 19
          Removal from the register of C-187/95 (*)                             Removal from the register of C-363/95 0 )
                           ( 97/C 199/39                                                           ( 97/C 199/43 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-187/95 ( Reference for a                   from the register of Case C-363/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Roma,     Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli       ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings            Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini .                              against Giuseppe Tancredi .
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-331/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/40 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 77/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/44 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331 /95 ( Reference for a                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-377/95 ( Reference for a
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Giuseppe Piccolo.                                              Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Tersilio Onorati .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       H OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-332/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/41 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 78/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/45 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-332/95 ( Reference for a                   By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        from the register of Case C-378/95 ( Reference for a
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
against Mario Corbo and Others .                                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                       Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      against Palma Mariulli .
                                                                        ') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-342/95 H
                            ( 97/C 199/42 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l/96 SA (')
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                             ( 97/C 199/46 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-342/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 24 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-l /96 SA: SA Must
against Miranda Viola .                                                Interim v. Commission of the European Communities.
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                        ') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case T-245/09: Order of the General Court of 5 January 2010 — Shell Hellas v European Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/48

         Order of the General Court of 5 January 2010 — Shell Hellas v European Commission
   (Case T-245/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/87

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case C-596/10: Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/11

         Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-596/10)
   2011/C 72/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, in applying a reduced rate of VAT to transactions relating to equidae and in particular to horses, where they are not as a matter of course intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs or in agricultural production, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99 of the VAT Directive (1) and of Annex III thereto;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises two complaints in support of its action relating to the non-compliance with the VAT Directive by the national legislation that, firstly, makes transactions that do not fall within the exceptions set out in Annex III to that directive subject to a reduced rate of 5,5 % and, secondly, makes some transactions subject to a reduced rate of 2,1 %.
   In its first complaint, the applicant points out that, apart from the fact that it applies a reduced rate of VAT of 5,5 % to transactions concerning live equidae without differentiating as to their use, the French legislation lays down yet more provisions which are not in accordance with the VAT Directive and, in particular, with paragraphs (1) and (11) of Annex III to that directive.
   In its second complaint, the Commission criticises the defendant’s administrative practice of applying a rate of 2,1 % to sales to persons not subject to VAT of live animals not intended for use as meat and meat products, and in particular horses for racing, competitions, pleasure and riding.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)


title: Case C-30/09: Action brought on 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/15

         Action brought on 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-30/09)
   (2009/C 82/27)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Sipos and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not drawing up external emergency plans for the establishments requiring such plans, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC (1) of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003;

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   It is apparent from the letters sent by the Portuguese Administration to the Commission in this matter that none of the establishments required to draw up emergency plans has had its external emergency plan approved in accordance with the directive.
   Article 11 of Directive 96/82 requires Member States to ensure that operators supply to the competent authorities the information necessary to draw up external emergency plans. The competent authorities must prepare such emergency plans.
   Under Article 11(4) of the directive, internal and external emergency plans must be reviewed, tested, revised and updated at intervals of no longer than three years.
   According to the Portuguese Administration's own information, none of those obligations has been fulfilled in Portugal.

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.


title: Case C-66/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/38

         Action brought on 12 February 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-66/15)
   (2015/C 138/52)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and D. Τriantafillou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic, by levying the whole amount of the registration tax payable on the registration of a vehicle which is rented or leased by a customer who is a Greek national from a supplier established in another Member State, without taking into consideration the duration of the rental contract or lease contract and the duration of use of the vehicle concerned in the national territory of Greece, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 to 62 TFEU in relation to the freedom to provide services;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Hellenic Republic, by imposing the whole of the registration tax payable on the registration by a supplier established in another Member State of vehicles which are leased or used on a hire-purchase agreement by nationals of Greece, without taking into consideration the duration of the lease (rental) contract and of use in the national territory of Greece, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56-62 TFEU.
   The imposition of the whole registration tax is disproportionate and hinders the free movement of services (see the case-law of the Court in Cura Anglagen, C-451/99, Coevering, C-242/05, Ilhan, C-42/08, and VAV Autovermietung GmbH, C-91/10).


title: Case F-155/12: Action brought on 19th December 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Action brought on 19th December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-155/12)
   2013/C 63/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen, Lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to add the applicant on the reserve list of the selection procedure EPSO/AD/215/11.

      Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the EPSO decision dated 19 September 2012;

               —

               if necessary the annulment of the EPSO decision dated 28 June 2012;

               —

               on a subsidiary level, to be compensated for the prejudice suffered;

               —

               in any event, order the reimbursement of all costs incurred to ensure the applicant’s defence.


title: Joined Cases T-22/02 and T-23/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  6 October 2005  — Sumitomo Chemical and Sumika Fine Chemicals v Commission (Competition — Cartels in the vitamin sector — Commission Decision finding infringements that have ceased and not imposing fines — Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 — Time-limit on the power of the Commission to impose fines or penalties — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of innocence — Legitimate interest in finding that infringements have been committed)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2005 — Sumitomo Chemical and Sumika Fine Chemicals v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-22/02 and T-23/02) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels in the vitamin sector - Commission Decision finding infringements that have ceased and not imposing fines - Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 - Time-limit on the power of the Commission to impose fines or penalties - Principle of legal certainty - Presumption of innocence - Legitimate interest in finding that infringements have been committed)
   (2005/C 296/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) and Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd (Osaka, Japan)) (represented by M. Klusmann, lawyer, and V. Turner, Solicitor)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by L. Pignataro-Nolin and A. Whelan, agents)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 — Vitamins) (OJ 2003 L 6, p. 1) in so far as it concerns the applicants
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/2/EC of 21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 — Vitamins) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               2)

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case T-585/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PENTEO — Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)
   (Case T-585/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PENTEO - Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aitic Penteo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Atos Worldline SA (Brussels, Belgium)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Chamber of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 774/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Atos Worldline SA and Aitic Penteo, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aitic Penteo, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Case F-98/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2011 — Cervelli v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Request for review — Material new facts — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/24

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2011 — Cervelli v Commission
   (Case F-98/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Request for review - Material new facts - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   2011/C 362/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Francesca Cervelli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and M. Arias Díaz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Cervelli is ordered to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 42.


title: Removal from the register of Case C-117/94

text:
No C 119/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13 . 5 . 95
on the same questions as in Case C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,                    from the register of Case C-455/93 : Italian Republic v.
C-49/95 , C-50/95 and C-60/95 ( 1 ).                                    Commission of the European Communities.
i 1 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             0 ) OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
   Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 H
                          and C-138/90 ( 2 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C- 1 1 7/94 ( x )
                            ( 95/C 119/21                                                           ( 95/C 119/23 )
fiy order of 21 February 1995 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 and C-138/90 :               from the register of Case C- 1 17/94 (reference for a
1 . Gesamtverband des Deutschen Steinkohlenbergbaus,                    preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Diisseldorf):
2 . Eschweiler Bergwerks-Verein AG, 3 . Gewerkschaft                    Ratiopharm GmbH & Co . v. Mundipharma GmbH.
Auguste Victoria, 4 . Gewerkschaft Sophia-Jacoba, 5 .
Preussag AG Kohle, 6 . Ruhrkohle AG, 7. Saarbergwerke
AG v. Commission of the European Communities and                        (!) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the
European Communities.
f 1 ) OJ No C 192 , 29 . 7 . 1989 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 146, 15 . 6 . 1990 .
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-183/94 (*)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/24 )
                                                                        By order of 7 February 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-455/93 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                            ( 95/C 119/22 )                             from the register of Case C-l 83/94: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 17 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 f 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Parliament (Agents: M. Peter and J. Pantalis) — application
                         of 22 March 1995                               for the annulment of the decision of the European
                                                                        Parliament of 29 September 1992 refusing the payment of
        in Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy and Others v.                  the applicant of the expatriation allowance from
                     European Parliament (*)                            1 September 1992 — the Court of First Instance ( Second
(Officials   — Expatriation allowance — Services performed              Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
                for an international organization)                      D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung,
                            ( 95/C 119/25                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March 1995 , in which
                                                                        it:
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        1 , dismisses the action;
In Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy, Loris and Fabio Lo                    2, orders the parties to pay their own costs.
Giudice, the next-of-kin of Mario Lo Giudice, formerly an
official of the European Parliament, residing at Namur
( Belgium ), represented by Manuel Campolini, of the                    f 1 ) OJ No C 210, 4 . 8 . 1993 .
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine, v. European


title: Case T-536/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative mark aroa — Earlier national figurative mark Aro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)
   (Case T-536/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark aroa - Earlier national figurative mark Aro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion))
   2014/C 380/10
   Language of the case: 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) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 October 2012 (Case R 1845/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Muga, SL and Aroa Bodegas, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aroa Bodegas, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

               3.

               Orders Bodegas Muga, SL to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.


title: Case C-344/07 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2007 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 Merant GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) , Intervener: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/11

         Appeal brought on 25 July 2007 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 Merant GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Intervener: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH
   (Case C-344/07 P)
   (2008/C 79/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (represented by: M. Herrmann and B. Müller, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings:

               1.

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

               2.

               Merant GmbH

         Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 and dismiss the action

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The judgment is based on an incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1) and thus on a serious infringement of the intervener's/appellant's rights.

               2.

               The infringement is constituted by an incorrect and cursory assessment of the facts on which the decision is based and an extension of the scope of the expression ‘likelihood of confusion’ for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance's interpretation that the conceptual content of the sign ‘MICRO FOCUS’ is ‘small focus’ is not in accordance with the general principles governing the issue of likelihood of confusion. The concept can only be interpreted in that way if the grammatical rules of the German language are incorrectly applied. On the basis of that interpretation of the sign ‘MICRO FOCUS’ the Court arrived at the incorrect finding that only the figurative element ‘Focus’ of the word/figurative sign ‘MICRO FOCUS’ should be compared with the sign ‘FOCUS’ in respect of which registration is sought. Building on that interpretation, the Court then erred in law in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion. If the Court had considered the whole of the word/figurative sign ‘MICRO FOCUS’, it would have correctly interpreted Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — American Clothing Associates SA and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Intellectual property — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade mark — Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property — Absolute grounds for refusal to register a trade mark — Trade marks identical with or similar to a State emblem — Representation of a maple leaf — Applicability to service marks)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — American Clothing Associates SA and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Joined Cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Intellectual property - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark - Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property - Absolute grounds for refusal to register a trade mark - Trade marks identical with or similar to a State emblem - Representation of a maple leaf - Applicability to service marks)
   2009/C 220/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: American Clothing Associates NV (represented by: P. Maeyaert, advocaat, N. Clarembeaux and C. De Keersmaeker, avocats) (C-202/08 P), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent) (C-208/08)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent) (202/08), American Clothing Asociates NV (represented by: P. Maeyaert, advocaat, N. Clarembeaux and C. De Keersmaeker, avocats (C-208/08 P)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 in Case T-215/06 American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 refusing registration as a Community trade mark of a sign representing a maple leaf in respect of goods in Classes 18 and 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and 6ter(1)(a) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883, as revised and amended — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration — Trademarks identical or similar to a State emblem — Representation of a maple leaf

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal brought by American Clothing Associates NV in Case C-202/08 P;

               2.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 28 February 2008 in Case T-215/06 American Clothing Associates v OHIM, in so far as it annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1463/2005-1) rejecting the application for registration of a sign representing a maple leaf as a Community trade mark;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by American Clothing Associates NV in Case T-215/06;

               4.

               Orders American Clothing Associates NV to pay the costs in Cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08 P.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-553/14: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Extra — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/46

         Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)
   (Case T-553/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Extra - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 311/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 218/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Extra as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/50

         (2006/C 212/88)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

      OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

      OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

      OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

      OJ C 131, 3.6.2006

      OJ C 121, 20.5.2006

   These texts are available on:

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

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


               12.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/10

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht dated 9 April 2013 in the case of Metacom AG v Rechtsanwälte Zipper & Collegen
   (Case E-6/13)
   2013/C 263/11
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 9 April 2013 from Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 15 April 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Metacom AG v Rechtsanwälte Zipper & Collegen, on the following questions:

               1.

               Can a European lawyer bringing proceedings in another EEA State in his own name and not pursuant to the mandate of a third party rely on Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (1)?

               2.

               Is an obligation on European lawyers to notify the authorities of the host State (as provided for here in Article 59 of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act (Rechtsanwaltsgesetz)) compatible with Directive 77/249/EEC and, in particular, with Article 7 of that Directive?

               3.

               If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: having regard to Directive 77/249/EEC, may a failure to provide notification in the host State on the part of a European lawyer engaged in the provision of services result in the consequence that the lawyer concerned may not claim lawyers’ fees in accordance with the scale of fees provided for in the host State (in Liechtenstein the fees provided for in the Lawyers’ Fees Act (Gesetz über den Tarif für Rechtsanwälte und Rechtsagenten) and the Lawyers’ Fees Regulation (Verordnung über die Tarifansätze der Entlohnung für Rechtsanwälte und Rechtsagenten))?

               4.

               Where a European lawyer engaged in the provision of services has only notified the authorities in the host State at a later date, may this subsequent notification result in the consequence that the lawyer may only claim fees in accordance with the scale of fees provided for in the host State in relation to the period following that notification but not in relation to procedural steps taken prior to that date?

               5.

               Having regard to Directive 77/249/EEC, does the answer to questions 3 and 4 depend on whether at the start of the proceedings the court of the host State referred the European lawyer engaged in the provision of services to the obligation under the law of that State to notify the authorities?

      (1)  OJ L 78, 26.3.1977, p. 17.


title: Case C-382/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2014  — Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-382/14)
   (2014/C 439/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?

               3.

               If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).