title: Case C-178/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureș (Romania) lodged on 17 March 2010 — Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Mureș, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Târgu-Mureș v SC Darmi SRL

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/34

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureș (Romania) lodged on 17 March 2010 — Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Mureș, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Târgu-Mureș v SC Darmi SRL
      (Case C-178/10)
      (2010/C 161/51)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureș

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Mureș, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Târgu-Mureș

         Defendant: SC Darmi SRL

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the introduction of a pollution tax for the period from 1 July 2008 to 15 December 2008 under the Romanian legislation in question (Emergency Order No 50/2008) consistent with the principles of customs union and the prohibition on double taxation established in Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC, in so far as those Treaty provisions permit the introduction of a pollution tax for the purpose set out by the Romanian legislature in the preamble to Emergency Order No 50/2008, a purpose which is also provided for in Article 174 TEC et seq, namely to ensure the protection of the environment through the implementation of programmes and projects intended to improve air quality and to attain the limit values laid down by the relevant Community legislation? In other words, more specifically: where a pollution tax is introduced in a Member State of the European Union which is levied on the first registration in that State of new or second hand motor vehicles imported from another Member State, can the provisions in Article 174 TEC et seq be regarded as justifying the disapplication of Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC?

                  2.

                  Where such a vehicle has been subject in a Member State to a similar tax, that is a pollution tax (having the same conceptual content and the same scope, namely relating to respect for the environment in accordance with the principles and objectives laid down in Articles 174 TEC et seq), is it possible to introduce such a pollution tax with the same objectives as those laid down in Articles 174 TEC et seq upon first registration in another Member State, even though the vehicle has already previously been subject to a pollution tax in another Member State?

                  3.

                  Finally, where, in the contrary case, such a vehicle has not been subject to a pollution tax in another Member State (either because such a tax does not exist or for other reasons) but, upon subsequent registration in a different Member State, such as Romania, where a tax of that kind is levied, the pollution tax is levied upon first registration of the vehicle in that State, can the principles of customs union and [the rules prohibiting] indirect domestic protection measures laid down in Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC be regarded as having been infringed?


title: Case T-96/13: Action brought on 22 February 2013 — Rot Front/OHIM — Rakhat (Macka)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/18

         Action brought on 22 February 2013 — Rot Front/OHIM — Rakhat (Macka)
   (Case T-96/13)
   2013/C 123/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Térauda, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rakhat AO (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘Macka’ for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 9 556 135

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark containing a device of bag with the word element ‘Macka’ for ‘confectionery’ goods in Greece and Germany

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-514/10: Action brought on 1 November 2010 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/30

         Action brought on 1 November 2010 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT)
   (Case T-514/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, USA) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. G. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blueshore Management SA (Cernusco Sul Naviglio, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 August 2010 in case R 1686/2008-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘FRUIT’ for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 745216

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 15(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to take account of (i) the presentation and significance of the word ‘FRUIT’ within the marks shown in the proprietor’s evidence of use, (ii) the evidence that the proprietor informally marketed its products under the name ‘FRUIT’, often using that mark verbally in dealings and transactions with its customers, and (iii) the evidence that the proprietor had used the mark ‘FRUIT’ as part of its marketing website.


title: Case T-232/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Adrian McClennaghan against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Noel McGing against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (Case T-233/03)
03 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 239/28)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Noel McGing,
                                                                              Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Adrian McClennaghan
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-232/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                            (2003/C 239/27)                                          Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                      (Language of the case: English)                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel,
                                                                                MFV Olgarry;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                ings.
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Adrian McClen-
naghan, Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
                                                                              03 (1).
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application in respect of the MFV Northern Celt;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-                Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eamon McHugh
       ings.                                                                     against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-234/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (2003/C 239/29)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Eamon McHugh,
                                                                              Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of 27 May 1998 in the case of FFAD - Entreprenørforeningens Affalds/Miljøsektion, acting on behalf of Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v The Commune of Copenhagen, Fifth Section of the Communal Authority - Environmental Control (Case C-209/98)

text:
C 234/22              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
p. 48) if it serves to secure the repayment of a debt which                   system as described in Question 1(a) to be
the principal debtor did not incur in the course of a trade                   established, where that system and the obligation
or profession already being pursued by him?                                   for waste producers to use the system are based
                                                                              on the interest in promoting recovery of the waste
                                                                              covered by the system, including the interest in
                                                                              ensuring necessary treatment capacity?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the éstre Landsret            2. Must Article 10 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended
by order of 27 May 1998 in the case of FFAD Ð                            by Directive 91/156/EEC (see Articles 13 and 2(j) of
Entreprenùrforeningens Affalds/Miljùsektion, acting on                   Regulation (EEC) No 259/93), be construed as
behalf of Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v The Commune                       meaning that public authorities are under an
of Copenhagen, Fifth Section of the Communal Authority                   obligation to treat equally undertakings which have
                  Ð Environmental Control                                obtained a permit as described in that provision in
                       (Case C-209/98)                                   relation to the conclusion of agreements concerning
                                                                         the receipt and recovery of environmentally non-
                         (98/C 234/42)                                   hazardous building waste?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 27 May 1998 from                   3. (a) Must Article 7(3) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as
the éstre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was                        amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, be construed
received at the Court Registry on 8 June 1998, for a                          as meaning that that provision and the power it
preliminary ruling in the case of FFAD Ð                                      grants to prevent movements of waste allow a
Entreprenùrforeningens Affalds/Miljùsektion, acting on                        communal system such as that described in
behalf of Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v The Commune                            Question 1(a) and thereby allow the commune to
of Copenhagen, Fifth Section of the Communal Authority                        prevent the movement of environmentally non-
Ð Environmental Control on the following questions:                           hazardous building waste destined for recovery, if
                                                                              such movement is contrary to the waste plan
1. (a) Disregarding possible application of Article 36 of                     drawn up by the commune?
         the Treaty or any other valid considerations (see
         Question 1(c)), must Article 90 of the Treaty, in
                                                                         (b) Must Article 7(3) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as
         conjunction with Articles 34 and 86 thereof, be
                                                                              amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, be construed
         construed as precluding the establishment of a
                                                                              as meaning that measures which a Member State
         communal system which Ð with a view to
                                                                              or a competent authority in that Member State
         ensuring that specially selected undertakings will
                                                                              has adopted, and which are necessary to prevent
         have sufficiently large access to environmentally
                                                                              movements of waste not in accordance with the
         non-hazardous building waste destined for
                                                                              waste plans of the authority, are valid and
         recovery from private builders to enable those
                                                                              enforceable against individuals or undertakings to
         undertakings to exploit that waste on an
                                                                              which the measures are relevant only if the EC
         economically justifiable and rational basis Ð
                                                                              Commission has been notified of those measures?
         excludes other undertakings from collecting and
         receiving the same type of waste from building
         work within the area of the commune in question,           (1) Council Directive of 75/442/EEC 15 July 1975 on waste
         even though these other undertakings have                      (OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39).
         obtained a permit to treat the type of waste in            (2) Council Directive of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991,
                                                                        p. 32).
         question in accordance with Article 10 of
         Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
         91/156/EEC (2)?
    (b) (If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative):
         Would a system such as that described in
         Question 1(a) be contrary to Article 90 of the EC          Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the
         Treaty, in conjunction with Articles 34 and 86                         European Communities against Ireland
         thereof, if the communal provision forming the
                                                                                (Case C-212/98)
         basis of that system provides that waste which is
         exported or imported is not covered by the                                          (98/C 234/43)
         communal system mentioned in Question 1(a)?
    (c) (If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative):
                                                                    An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
         Does Article 36 of the Treaty or any other valid           Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1998
         considerations, such as the concern that                   by the Commission of the European Communities,
         environmental damage should be rectified at                represented by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal
         source and the establishment of any necessary              Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
         treatment      and     disposal    facilities    (see      office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its
         Article 130r(2) of the Treaty), allow a communal           Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2001 in Case C-100/99: Italian Republic v Council of the European Union (Common agricultural policy — Agrimonetary system for the euro — Transitional measures for the introduction of the euro)

text:
29.9.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 275/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 3 of the Decreto
                                                                                Ministeriale of 13 August 1998, which brings into force Law
                                                                                No 537 of 24 December 1993, as amended by Law No 662
                        (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 December 1996, and which provides for different
                                                                                departure taxes according to whether the flight in question is
                           of 4 July 2001                                          domestic or intra-Community, the Italian Republic has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of Council
in Case C-447/99: Commission of the European Communi-                              Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                   Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes;
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                       2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Access
for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                         — Departure tax)
                          (2001/C 275/01)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definition translation will be published                                    (Fifth Chamber)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 5 July 2001
In Case C-447/99: Commission of the European Communities                     in Case C-100/99: Italian Republic v Council of the
(Agents: F. Benyon and S. Dragone) v Italian Republic (Agent:                                           European Union (1)
U. Leanza, assisted by I.M. Braguglia) — application for a
declaration that, by maintaining in force Article 3 of the                   (Common agricultural policy — Agrimonetary system for
Decreto Ministeriale (Ministerial Decree) of 13 August 1998,                 the euro — Transitional measures for the introduction of the
which brings into force Law No 537 of 24 December 1993, as                                                      euro)
amended by Law No 662 of 23 December 1996, and which
                                                                                (2001/C 275/02)
provides for different departure taxes according to whether the
flight in question is domestic or intra-Community, the Italian                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined
provisions of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ment, Article 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation                                        in the European Court Reports)
(EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community
air carriers to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1992 L 240,                   In Case C-100/99: Italian Republian (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
p. 8) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris                  by D. Del Gaizo) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                     G. Maganza and I. Dı́ez Parra) and Commission of the
N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and F. Rug-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 July 2001, in which it:                 geri Laderchi) — application for annulment of:
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.9.2001
—     Council Regulation (EC) No 2800/98 of 15 December                    European Communities, (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, J. Inghelram
      1998 on transitional measures to be applied under                    and P. Giusta) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
      the common agricultural policy with a view to the                    Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris
      introduction of the euro (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 8) and, more             (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
      particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof;                              (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
                                                                           and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
—     Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December                    Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
      1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2001, in which it:
      euro (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 1) and, more particularly,
      Articles 4 and 5 thereof and the annex thereto, in                   1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      particular paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof;
                                                                           2.    Orders Ismeri Europa Srl to pay the costs.
—     Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 of 22 Decem-
      ber 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application
      of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture (OJ           (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
      1998 L 349, p. 36); and
—     Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/98 of 22 Decem-
      ber 1998 laying down detailed rules for applying the
      transitional measures for the introduction of the euro to
      the common agricultural policy (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 48),
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                                             of 12 July 2001
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 5 July 2001, in which it:                          in Case C-368/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Cour du travail de Mons): Abdon Vanbraekel and
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           Others v Alliance nationale des mutualités chrétiennes
                                                                                (ANMC) (1)
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Social security — Sickness insurance — Articles 22 and 36
                                                                           of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Freedom to provide
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                  services — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
                                                                           ment, Article 49 EC) — Hospital treatment costs incurred in
                                                                           another Member State — Refusal of authorisation sub-
                                                                                sequently declared unfounded)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            10 July 2001                                                      in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-315/99 P: Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors                  In Case C-368/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
               of the European Communities (1)                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour de
                                                                           travail de Mons (Higher Labour Court, Mons) Belgium for a
(Appeal — MED programmes — Special Report No 1/96 of                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
the Court of Auditors — Principle of the right to a hearing                court between Abdon Vanbraekel and Others and Alliance
— Naming of third parties — Necessity and proportionality)                 nationale des mutualités chrétiennes (ANMC) — on the
                                                                           interpretation of Articles 22 and 36 of Council Regulation
                          (2001/C 275/03)                                  (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                           social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           persons and to members of their families moving within the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Community, in the version amended and updated by Council
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230,
                                                                           p. 6), and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
In Case C-315/99 P: Ismeri Europa Srl, established in Rome                 Article 49 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
(Italy), represented by S. Ristuccia and G.L. Tosato, avvocati,            Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 15 June 1999                   D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen
in Case T-277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999]                  and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
ECR II-1825) seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
other party to the proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the             on 12 July 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-335/00: Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 316/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
1.   May Article 22 of Directive 93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June              2.    Was it permissible to increase the prices established for
     1993 be interpreted as meaning that the competent                       Hamburg and ‘Fac Atlant’ by the addition of notional
     national courts are required to protect citizens of the                 freight costs of ECU 3,8 per tonne?
     Union adversely affected by measures adopted in breach
     of Community law, by resorting, in particular, to disappli-
     cation as provided for in Article 5 of Law No 2248 of             3.    When determining the final reference price was it per-
     20 March 1865 with respect to clauses of an invitation                  missible to use as a basis purely mathematically deter-
     to tender which are contrary to Community law but were                  mined average prices, without taking into account the
     not challenged within the short time-limit laid down by                 different quantities marketed in the individual months of
     national procedural law for the application of Community                the calculation period?
     law by the court of its own motion, whenever it is found,
     first, that the application of Community law has been             4.    If questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, is
     seriously impeded or rendered difficult in any way, and                 Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 defective as regards its
     second, that there is a public interest, of Community or                criteria for calculating the final regional reference amount
     national origin, which justifies such application?                      in that it fails to state reasons within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 253 (previously Article 190) of the EC Treaty?
2.   Does Article 6(2) of the Treaty which, by providing for
     respect of the fundamental rights safeguarded by the              5.    Would that failure to state reasons be so material that it
     European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamen-                       would lead to the nullity, in whole or in part, of the
     tal Freedoms, has adopted the principle of effective                    regulation?
     judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of
     that Convention, lead to the same conclusion?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1993 L 56 of 9.3.1993, p. 18.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.
                                                                       Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Com-
                                                                       mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches
Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg by order of 30 August
2000 in the case of Maria Weber and Martin Weber v                                               (Case C-335/00)
                        Freistaat Bayern
                                                                                (2000/C 316/31)
                        (Case C-328/00)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (2000/C 316/30)                                ties on 11 September 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Gérard Berscheid, of
                                                                       its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also
European Communities by order of 30 August 2000 by
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht (Bavarian Administrative
Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 Septemb-
er 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Maria
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern on the following
questions:
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-
1.   Was the Commission, when establishing the final regional                trative provisions needed in order to comply with
     reference amount, entitled, notwithstanding the wording
     of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 (1), to leave
     out of account reference prices from months in the                      —     Commission Directive 98/68/EC of 10 September
     period between 1 July 1992 and January 1993, to include                       1998 laying down the standard document referred
     in its calculation reference prices from months after that                    to in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/53/EC and
     period, and to replace missing information on reference                       certain rules for checks at the introduction into the
     prices by an estimate?                                                        Community of feedingstuffs from third countries (1),
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/17
      —     Commission Directive 98/87/EC of 13 November                 2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            1998 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on
            the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (2), and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     Commission Directive 98/100/EC of 21 December
            1998 amending Directive 92/76/EC recognising                 The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
            protected zones exposed to particular plant health           Case C-377/99 (1).
            risks in the Community (3),
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision on the financial correction
            the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil           concerning expenditure of the Land of Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
            its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 98/68/EC,       mern in the arable crops sector for the 1995 harvest, in so far
            Article 2 of Directive 98/87/EC and Article 2 of             as the Commission
            Directive 98/100/EC;
                                                                         —     now charges 5 %, instead of 2 % as originally envisaged,
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                    of the expenditure whose justification was checked by
                                                                               classic on-the-spot control, and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     applies a charge of 2 % for the expenditure whose
                                                                               justification was checked by remote sensing.
By virtue of the mandatory nature of Articles 10 EC and 249
EC, Member States are required to take the measures necessary
to transpose directives addressed to them into national law              (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999, p. 19.
before the expiry of the periods prescribed for that purpose.
The periods laid down in the provisions referred to in
paragraph 1 of the heads of claim expired on 31 March 1999,
30 June 1999 and 1 January 1999, respectively, without the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having adopted the necessary
measures.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by the Conseil
                                                                         National des Professions de l’Automobile (‘CNPA’), la
(1) OJ L 261, 24.9.1998, p. 32.                                          Fédération Nationale de Distributeurs, Loueurs et Répara-
(2) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 43.                                         teurs de Matériel de Bâtiments et Travaux Publics et de
(3) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 35.                                         Manutention (‘DLR’), Auto Contrôle 31 SA, YAM 31 Sàrl,
                                                                         Roux SA, Marc Foucher-Creteau et Verdier Distri-
                                                                         bution Sàrl against the order made on 12 July 2000 by the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Third Chamber) in Case T-45/00 Conseil National des
                                                                         Professions de l’Automobile, la Fédération Nationale de
                                                                         Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériel de
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by the Federal                       Bâtiments et Travaux Publics et de Manutention, Auto
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the                        Contrôle 31 SA, YAM 31 Sàrl, Roux SA, Marc Foucher-
                     European Communities                                Creteau et Verdier Distribution Sàrl v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                          (Case C-337/00)
                                                                                (Case C-341/00 P)
                         (2000/C 316/32)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/33)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             An appeal against the order made on 12 July 2000 by the
Communities on 14 September 2000 by the Federal Republic                 Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Minis-                  Communities in Case T-45/00 between CNPA and Others and
terialrat, and Thomas Jürgensen, Regierungsrat, of the Federal           the Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of
Ministry of Financial Affairs, 108 Graurheindorfer Straße,               the European Communities on 18 September 2000 by CNPA
D-53117 Bonn.                                                            and Others, represented by C. Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.
1.    Annul Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July                    The appellants claim that the Court should:
      2000 on the exclusion from Community financing of
      certain expenditure of the Member States charged to the            having regard to Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of
      Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance            the Court of First Instance
      and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as under Article 1
      the sum of DEM 17 412 165,440 is not accepted by the               —     set aside the contested order on grounds of a substantial
      EAGGF but charged to the Federal Republic of Germany;                    procedural defect;


title: Case C-51/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
   (Case C-51/16)
   (2016/C 136/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Noord-Holland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should heading 9021 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that implant screws as described in 4 above, which are solely intended to be implanted in the human body for the treatment of fractures or the fixation of prostheses, may be classified thereunder?

               2.

               Is Regulation No 1212/2014 (1) valid?

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1212/2014 of 11 November 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2014 L 329, p. 3).


title: Case C-344/12: Action brought on 18 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/26

         Action brought on 18 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-344/12)
   2012/C 287/49
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by having failed to adopt, within the periods prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement Decision C(2009) 8112 of 19 November 2009 concerning State aids Nos C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) granted by Italy to Alcoa Trasformazioni, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under Article 288 TFEU;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject-matter of the Commission’s action is the failure by the Italian Republic to give effect to the Commission’s decision relating to unlawful State aid granted to the company Alcoa.
   First, pursuant to Article 4 of the decision in question, Italy was required to notify the Commission, by 20 January 2010, of the total amount of the aid to be recovered, of the measures adopted and envisaged for the purpose of complying with the decision and of the documents showing that the beneficiary had been required to repay the aid. Second, in accordance with Article 2, in conjunction with Article 3, of the decision, Italy was required to recover the aid from the beneficiary by 20 March 2010.
   As at the date of commencement of this action, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to comply with those obligations.


title: Case C-48/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet (Tax legislation — Freedom of establishment — National tax on profits — Group taxation — Taxation of the activity of foreign permanent establishments of resident companies — Avoidance of double taxation by set-off of tax (credit method) — Reincorporation of the losses deducted previously in the event that the permanent establishment is transferred to a group company over which the Member State in question does not exercise powers of taxation)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-48/13) (1)

   ((Tax legislation - Freedom of establishment - National tax on profits - Group taxation - Taxation of the activity of foreign permanent establishments of resident companies - Avoidance of double taxation by set-off of tax (credit method) - Reincorporation of the losses deducted previously in the event that the permanent establishment is transferred to a group company over which the Member State in question does not exercise powers of taxation))
   2014/C 315/11
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nordea Bank Danmark A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU and Articles 31 and 34 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 preclude legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of transfer by a resident company to a non-resident company in the same group of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State or in another State that is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the losses previously deducted in respect of the establishment transferred are reincorporated into the transferring company’s taxable profit, in so far as the first Member State taxes both the profits made by that establishment before its transfer and those resulting from the gain made upon the transfer.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-109/11: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURANCE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENDURACE — Earlier Community figurative mark ENDURANCE — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Partial refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURANCE)
   (Case T-109/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENDURACE - Earlier Community figurative mark ENDURANCE - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Partial refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion)
   2013/C 156/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apollo Tyres AG (Baden, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, 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: Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd (Aurangabad, India)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2010 (Case R 625/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd and Apollo Tyres AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Apollo Tyres AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case T-778/15: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — It Works v EUIPO — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/60

         Order of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — It Works v EUIPO — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)
   (Case T-778/15) (1)

   (2017/C 277/86)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case T-387/06: Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM (representation of a pallet)

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/35

         Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM (representation of a pallet)
   (Case T-387/06)
   (2007/C 20/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Inter-IKEA Systems BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 September 2006 in Case R 353/2006-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a pallet consisting of an elongated rectangular platform or base and an equally elongated flange, ornamented with square holes, which are both at a 90 degree angle to each other, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39 et 42 — application No 4 073 763

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark is sufficiently distinctive to be registered.


title: Case T-220/02: Action brought on 22 July 2002 by Antonio Silva against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
The applicant further claims that there has been an infringe-              Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of the principle of equal treatment and argues that two
separate valuation methods are applied in the decision under
challenge. For the valuation of the shares which it was forced             The applicant, a grade A 3 official working in the External
to purchase, the decision applies a nominal price, which,                  Relations Directorate-General, is contesting the rejection by
however, according to the applicant, was much higher than                  the appointing authority of her application for the post of
the true value of the shares. For the valuation of the shares              director of Directorate B (Multilateral relations and human
which the applicant transferred to the Regional Authority for              rights).
Wallonia by way of payment, however, the decision applies
the real value of the shares, which at that time was considered
to be zero.                                                                In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                           —     infringement of Articles 7, 27, 29(1)(a) and 45 of the
In conclusion, the applicant argues that there has been an
infringement of the principle that reasons must be given.                        Staff Regulations, breach of the principle that officials
                                                                                should have reasonable career prospects and of the
                                                                                principle of non-discrimination, and non-compliance
                                                                                with the terms of the vacancy notice. She considers in
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                                that regard that, by omitting to carry out an examination
     down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
     Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83 of 27.3.1999, pp 1 to 9).                              of the comparative merits of the candidates, the appoint-
                                                                                ing authority ultimately took into consideration an
                                                                                application for the post which manifestly failed to fulfil
                                                                                the conditions laid down by the vacancy notice;
                                                                           —     non-compliance with the obligation to provide a state-
                                                                                ment of reasons.
Action brought on 18 July 2002 by Daniela Napoli
Buzzanca against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                          (Case T-218/02)
                                                                           Action brought on 22 July 2002 by Antonio Silva against
                         (2002/C 247/25)                                            Commission of the European Communities
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                    (Case T-220/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/26)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                     (Language of the case: French)
European Communities on 18 July 2002 by Daniela Napoli
Buzzanca, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 22 July 2002 by Antonio Silva,
                                                                           residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
—      annul the decisions of the appointing authority, probably           Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
       adopted on 30 January 2002, appointing Ms S. as
       director, in grade A 2, of Directorate B (Multilateral
       relations and human rights) of the External Relations               The applicant claims that the Court should:
       Directorate-General (RELEX) and rejecting the application
       of the applicant for that post;                                     —     annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
                                                                                the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 2001 promotions
—      order the defendant to pay damages assessed, as at the                    procedure, as evidenced by the publication in Adminis-
       date of the action and subject to possible increase, in the               trative Information No 72/2001 of 14 August 2001 of
       sum of 23 213,96 euros;                                                   the list of officials promoted to that grade;
—      order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of             The applicants are contesting the change in the calculation
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of            method used by the Commission up until 1996 and/or 1997
equal treatment and of the principle that officials should have            in relation to the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
reasonable career prospects and manifest error of assessment
and failure to provide reasons.
                                                                           They point out in that regard that the travel expenses in
                                                                           question were previously calculated on the basis of the cost of
The promotions committee awarded the applicant additional                  a first class rail ticket for a journey passing through Yugoslavia,
points in order to ensure that he was not penalised for his                regardless of the final destination. The new method involves
mobility. The Commission however does not provide any                      taking into consideration, in respect of certain destinations, a
explanation of how those additional points were taken into                 journey via Brindisi to the various Greek frontier posts based
consideration when examining the comparative merits of the                 on the cost of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket.
candidates. Neither does it explain why it promoted persons
whose total points were fewer than those of the applicant.
                                                                           In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of
                                                                                Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch
                                                                                as the change in the method of calculating the travel
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                                expenses in issue has resulted in the persons concerned
and Others against the Commission of the European                                being treated differently from their colleagues whose
                          Communities                                            place of origin is located in northern Greece. Whereas,
                                                                                for part of Greece, the sum continues to be calculated on
                        (Case T-221/02)                                          the basis of a journey via Yugoslavia, the same calculation
                                                                                cannot be carried out for the rest of Greece;
                        (2002/C 247/27)                                    —     infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
                                                                                the persons concerned have been denied the possibility
                   (Language of the case: French)                                of presenting to the competent authority their views on
                                                                                the choice of itinerary and the tariff to be taken into
                                                                                account;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       reasons, of the principle of the protection of legitimate
European Communities on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                          expectations and of the duty to have regard for the
and 63 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer,                       welfare and interests of officials.
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, with effect from 1996 and/or 1997, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling           Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat Icardo
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken             against the Commission of the European Communities
      into consideration for certain destinations;
                                                                                (Case T-224/02)
—     alternatively, annul the decision of the competent hier-
      archical authority to reimburse, with effect from 1996
      and/or 1997, the cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to                                        (2002/C 247/28)
      various Greek frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras)
      on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
      implementing the decisions annulment of which is
      sought;                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                European Communities on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat
      Commission to pay those costs.                                       Icardo, represented by M. Lucas, lawyer.


title: Case C-286/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014  — European Parliament v European Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/21

         Action brought on 11 June 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission
   (Case C-286/14)
   2014/C 253/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, A. Troupiotis and M. Menegatti, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 (1) of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action the Parliament raises a single plea, alleging that the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it in Article 21(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 (2). The contested regulation amends Annex I of the basic act, adding a new Part VI, which concerns transport funding priorities of multiannual and annual work programmes. According to the Parliament, the Commission thus exceeded the powers conferred on it by the basic regulation in adopting a delegated act which ‘modifies’ that basic regulation, instead of merely ‘completing’ it, as required of it by Article 21(3).

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 80, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2013 L 348, p. 129.


title: Case F-102/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — Kerstens v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2004, 2005 and 2006 Promotions procedures — Award of priority points — Priority points awarded by directors general — Priority points in recognition of work carried out in the interests of the institution — Principle of non-discrimination — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/72

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case F-102/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2004, 2005 and 2006 Promotions procedures - Award of priority points - Priority points awarded by directors general - Priority points in recognition of work carried out in the interests of the institution - Principle of non-discrimination - Duty to state reasons)
   2010/C 24/130
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Velardo, initially, and C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, subsequently, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of various Commission decisions concerning the award to the applicant of directorate general priority points (PPDG) and/or priority points in recognition of additional tasks carried out in the interests of the institution (PPII) under the 2004, 2005 and 2006 promotion exercises.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007, p. 49.


title: Case C-107/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 3 March 2011 — Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta v Massimiliano Rizzo

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 3 March 2011 — Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta v Massimiliano Rizzo
   (Case C-107/11)
   2011/C 139/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta

      Defendant: Massimiliano Rizzo

      Questions referred

   Is the national legislation introduced initially by the Bersani Decree — namely, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006 — compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, and specifically as regards the national rules which, inter alia:

               (a)

               tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure under which some operators were unlawfully excluded;

               (b)

               ensure de facto the maintenance of commercial positions already acquired (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks at a distance from existing kiosks which falls short of the specified minimum);

               (c)

               make it possible for the licence to lapse in cases where the licensee engages, directly or indirectly, in cross-border gaming activities analogous to those covered by the licence?


title: Case T-689/16: Action brought on 24 September 2016 — PL v Commission

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/25

      Action brought on 24 September 2016 — PL v Commission
      (Case T-689/16)
      (2016/C 441/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: PL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the confirmatory decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit DG HR.B4 ‘Career and performance management’ not to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 by adopting a decision, already implemented for more than 3 years, to reassign the applicant, in the interest of the service, from the European Union Delegation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (East Jerusalem) to the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE) in Brussels with retroactive effect as of 1 January 2013;

                  —

                  annul the implicit decision of 20 August 2015 to reject the applicant’s request, made through his legal counsel, to be informed of the measures taken by the Commission to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 in Case F-96/13;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 250 000 as compensation for the material and non-material harm which he has suffered;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea: infringement of Article 266 TFEU in so far as the contested decisions are not compatible with the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 15 April 2015 in Case F-96/13 in relation to its grounds which form the necessary support for the operative part, in the sense that they are indispensable for determining the exact meaning of the ruling in the operative part.

                              —

                              The applicant considers that Article 266 TFEU requires the Commission to ensure that any act replacing the annulled act is not tainted by the same irregularities as those identified in the judgment ordering annulment, which is the position in the present case.

                  2.

                  Second plea: abuse of procedure in so far as the contested decisions do not constitute a proper, bona fide and fair implementation of the CST’s judgment ordering annulment and were merely adopted with the sole aim of conferring a veneer of legality on a decision which, although annulled, had already been implemented for more than three years.

                  3.

                  Third plea: breach of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-332/01: Action brought on 6 September 2001 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/14                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations               The Hellenic Republic contends that a financial correction has
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with              been imposed upon it unlawfully in the cotton, olive oil, grape
      Commission Directive 1999/28/EC (1) of 21 April 1999               and sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors.
      amending the Annex to Council Directive 92/14/EEC (2)
      on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered
      by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the                 The Hellenic Republic contends that the proposed financial
      Convention on International Civil Aviation or, in any              correction should be annulled on the following grounds: the
      event, by failing to inform the Commission of those                applicable regulations were misinterpreted and misapplied;
      measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under       there was error as to the facts and the facts were incorrectly
      that Directive;                                                    assessed; the statement of reasons is defective, insufficient and
                                                                         vague; and the principle of proportionality was infringed and
(2) order Ireland to pay the costs.                                      the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 6 September 2001 by Commission of
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
in Case C-323/01 (3); the time-limit for transposition expired
on 1 September 1999.                                                                              (Case C-333/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/25)
(1) OJ L 118, 6.5.1999, p. 53.
(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 21.
(3) See page 12 of this Official Journal.                                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 September
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Legal Service,
                                                                         acting as Agent, with an address for service care of Luis
                                                                         Escobar Guerrero, also of the Commission Legal Service,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 6 September 2001 by the Hellenic
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                              munities
                                                                               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                         (Case C-332/01)                                       Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998
                                                                               amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of
                                                                               genetically modified micro-organisms (1), or, in any event,
                         (2001/C 317/24)                                       by having failed to communicate such provisions to the
                                                                               Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under that directive; and
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Communities on 6 September 2001 by the Hellenic Republic,
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State
Legal Service, and Ioannis Khalkias, Member of that Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              in Case C-323/01 (2); the time limit for implementation expired
                                                                         on 5 June 2000.
—     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
      C(2001) 1795 final of 11 July 2001 excluding from                  (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 13.
      Community financing certain expenditure incurred by                (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
      the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
      EAGGF.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-336/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Brangewitz GmbH (Plant varieties — System of protection — Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 — Use by farmers of the product of the harvest — Suppliers of processing services — Obligation to provide information to the holder of the Community right)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-336/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Brangewitz GmbH (1)

   (Plant varieties - System of protection - Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 - Use by farmers of the product of the harvest - Suppliers of processing services - Obligation to provide information to the holder of the Community right)
   (2004/C 300/23)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-336/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), made by decision of 8 August 2002, received at the Court on 23 September 2002, in the proceedings between Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Brangewitz GmbH — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 cannot be interpreted as allowing the holder of a Community plant variety right to request a supplier of processing services to provide the information specified in those provisions where the holder has no indication that the latter has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by farmers by planting propagating material of a variety belonging to the holder, other than a hybrid or synthetic variety, which is covered by that right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species listed in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94, for planting.

               2.

               The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the holder has some indication that the supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by farmers by planting propagating material of a variety belonging to the holder, other than a hybrid or synthetic variety, which is covered by a Community plant variety right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species listed in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94, for planting, the processor is required to provide him with the relevant information relating not only to the farmers for whom the holder has some indication that the processor has provided or intends to provide such services but also to all other farmers for whom he has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by planting propagating material of the variety concerned, where that variety has been declared or is otherwise known to him.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case F-84/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Drewes-Wran v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Drewes-Wran v Commission
   (Case F-84/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/66)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9/11/2013, p. 52.


title: Case C-516/08: Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/43

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-516/08) (1)

   2010/C 63/69

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 5 March 1998 in the case of Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v. Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. (Case C-101/98)

text:
4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Communities on 9 April 1998 by the Kingdom of Sweden,
                                                                    represented by Lotty Nordling, Rättschef, with an address
                                                                    for service in Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy, 2 Rue
Ð annul Commission Decision SG(98) D/1124 of                        H. Heine, Luxembourg.
     9 February 1998 in its entirety on the grounds of
     breach of the EC Treaty and breach of essential
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
     procedural requirements and misuse of powers by the
     Commission,
                                                                    Ð pursuant to Article 173, declare invalid the 1998 TAC
                                                                         Regulation (EC No 45/98) (1), in so far as the
Ð order the Commission of the European Communities                       regulation provides for the allocation of cod in
     to pay the costs.                                                   zone IIIbcd, and
                                                                    Ð order the council to pay the Kingdom of Sweden's
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      costs.
Breach of the EC Treaty, breach of essential procedural             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
requirements and misuse of powers: The aid which is the
subject of the proceedings is to be regarded as existing aid,       Article 121(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of
since the Commission failed to express its opinion on the           accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
proposed aid within a reasonable time. The opening of a             Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
formal examination procedure therefore conflicts with the           to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
Treaty, since the legally incorrect classification as a newly       as worded according to Council Decision 95/1/EC,
notified aid is thereby effected and the application of the         Euratom, ECSC (2), should be annulled:
prohibition of implementation under Article 93(3)
expressly stated. The applicant considers that by the letter
of 19 March 1997 at the latest it transmitted in full to the        For the year 1998 a quantity of 86 547 tonnes of
Commission all the information which the Commission                 Community cod is available for fishing in Community
required to be able to express an opinion on the                    waters in zone IIIb, c, d. According to the conditions laid
compatibility of the measure with the Treaty; none of the           down in Article 121(1) of the Act of Accession, Sweden
later questions' of the Commission were in any way                 should have been allocated 29 921 tonnes (0.35037
material for the decision, but evidently served only to             50 000 + 0.4  36 947  400  1 976) of that amount.
delay a decision.                                                   This is taking into account the fact that the transfer of
                                                                    400 tonnes to Poland under the agreement between the
                                                                    Community and Poland has been deducted from Sweden's
The Commission asserts that it is entitled to oppose the            quota and that in 1998 1 976 tonnes of Sweden's quota is
implementation of the measures after proper notification            to be transferred to other Member States in accordance
by the Member State under the Lorenz procedure'. That              with the agreement made in connection with the signing
opposition is evidently intended to have the consequence            of the EEA Agreement. Instead, Sweden has been allocated
that thereafter (ex tunc or ex nunc?) there is no existing          under Regulation (EC) No 45/98 29 246 tonnes, which is
aid. That follows from the final paragraph of the                   675 tonnes less than results from the Act of Accession.
Background' section of the contested decision and from
the last sentence of Point 2.1 and the last sentence of             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19 December 1997
Point 5.1 of the Commission's Guidelines'. In the                      fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the
applicant's opinion, there is no such right of opposition;              total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions under
moreover, even supposing that it did exist as stated in the             which they may be fished (OJ L 12, 19.1.1998, p. 1).
                                                                    (2) OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 1.
Commission's Guidelines', it was exercised too late, and
is therefore of no effect.
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
                                                                    gerichtshof by order of that court of 5 March 1998 in the
Action brought on 9 April 1998 by the Kingdom of                    case of Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v.
     Sweden against the Council of the European Union                   Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V.
                       (Case C-100/98)                                                       (Case C-101/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/33)
                        (98/C 209/32)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Council of the European Union was             European Communities by an order of the 1st Civil
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Chamber of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Justice) of 5 March 1998, which was received at the Court            date of birth which results from the first information given
Registry on 9 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the            by the insured person to the social security institution of
case of Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v.                     the Member State in question or to the employer in that
Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. on                State (in so far as he is under a duty to notify the social
the following questions:                                             security institution)?
(a) Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/
     87 (1) of 2 July 1987 on the protection of
     designations used in marketing of milk and milk
     products, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of
     Council Directive 89/398/EEC (2) of 3 May 1989 on
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
     the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                     Gerichtshof by order of that court of 31 March 1998 in
     relating to foodstuffs intended for particular
                                                                     the case of Johann Buchner and 12 others v. Sozialver-
     nutritional uses, to be interpreted as meaning that a
                                                                                sicherungsanstalt der Bauern
     milk product, in which milk fat has been replaced on
     dietary grounds by vegetable fat, cannot be described                                  (Case C-104/98)
     as cheese?                                                                               (98/C 209/35)
(b) If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative, is it
     significant that the designation dietary cheese                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     (dietary soft cheese) containing vegetable oil for a fat-       European Communities by an order of the Oberster
     modified diet' is complemented by additional                    Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) of 31 March 1998,
     descriptive material on the packaging, such as this            which was received at the Court Registry on 14 April
     dietary cheese is rich in polyunsaturated fats¼' or             1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Johann
     this dietary cheese is ideal for a cholesterol-conscious       Buchner and 12 others v. Sozialversicherungsanstalt der
     lifestyle¼'?                                                    Bauern on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 182, 3.7.1987, p. 36.                                       1. Is Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) to be
(2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 27.                                          interpreted as allowing Member States to determine
                                                                         different pensionable ages only for pension rights
                                                                         which are granted exclusively on the basis of the risk
                                                                         of old age, or is that derogation applicable also to
                                                                         pension rights which are granted only from a specified
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  age but in addition are granted only because of
gericht by order of that court of 17 February 1998 in the                invalidity (incapacity for work)?
case of Ibrahim Kocak against Landesversicherungsanstalt
               Oberfranken und Mittelfranken                         2. Is Article 7(1)(a) and (2) of Directive 79/7/EEC to the
                       (Case C-102/98)                                   interpreted as allowing a Member State to alter a
                                                                         previously existing identical provision on pensionable
                         (98/C 209/34)                                   age (in this case completion of the 55th year for men
                                                                         and women) after the end of the transposition period,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   in such a way that a different pensionable age for men
European Communities by order of the Thirteenth Senate                   and women (in this case completion of the 57th year
of the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) of                     for men and the 55th year for women) is now
17 February 1998, received at the Court Registry on                      determined?
9 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Ibrahim      Kocak     against    Landesversicherungsanstalt         (1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24.
(Regional Insurance Office) Oberfranken und Mittel-
franken on the following question:
Is the law relating to the association between the
European Economic Community and Turkey (in particular
Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey                   Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Günther Bühring
of 12 September 1963, Article 37 of the Additional                   against the judgment delivered on 4 February 1998 by the
Protocol to that agreement of 23 November 1970,                      First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Article 10 of Decision No 1/80 of the Council of                     European Communities in Case T-246/93 between
Association of 19 September 1980 and Article 3(1) of                 Günther Bühring and the Council of the European Union
Decision No 3/80 of the Council of Association of                        and the Commission of the European Communities
19 September 1980) to be interpreted as not permitting                                     (Case C-105/98 P)
the legislature of a Member State to adopt rules under                                        (98/C 209/36)
which the applicable date of birth for use in the insurance
number allocated to an insured person and for the grant
of old-age pension is in principle, in the case of Turkish           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 February
migrant workers also Ð without regard to particular                  1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
characteristics of the Turkish register of civil status Ð the        of the European Communities in Case T-246/93 between