title: Case C-127/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG
   (Case C-127/09)
   2009/C 141/55
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH

      Defendant: Simex Trading AG

      Question referred

   Are goods put on the market within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and Article 7 of Directive 89/104/EEC (2) if ‘perfume testers’ are made available to contractually-bound intermediaries without transfer of ownership and with a prohibition on the sale thereof so that those intermediaries are able to allow potential customers to use the contents of the goods for test purposes, the goods bearing a notice stating that they may not be sold, the recall of the goods by the manufacturer/trade mark proprietor at any time remaining contractually possible and the packaging of the goods being significantly different from the goods usually put on the market by the manufacturer/trade mark proprietor in that it is plainer?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1–36.

      (2)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1–7.


title: Case C-81/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — France Télécom v European Commission, French Republic (Appeal — State aid — France Télécom’s business tax regime — Concept of ‘aid’ — Legitimate expectations — Limitation period — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — France Télécom v European Commission, French Republic
   (Case C-81/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - France Télécom’s business tax regime - Concept of ‘aid’ - Legitimate expectations - Limitation period - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of legal certainty)
   2012/C 32/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: France Télécom SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, L. Olza Moreno and L. Godfroid, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and D. Grespan, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgments of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 France and France Télécom v Commission by which the Court dismissed the actions brought by the French Republic and the appellant for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/709/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State aid implemented by France (OJ 2005 L 269, p. 30) — Misapplication of the concepts of ‘State aid’ and ‘advantage’ in connection with France Télécom’s business tax regime for the period 1994 to 2002 — Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations — Limitation period for State aid — Obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of legal certainty

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders France Télécom SA to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-324/09: Action brought on 18 August 2009 — J & F Participações v OHIM — Fribo Foods (Friboi)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/29

         Action brought on 18 August 2009 — J & F Participações v OHIM — Fribo Foods (Friboi)
   (Case T-324/09)
   2009/C 256/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: J & F Participações SA (Sorocaba, Brazil) (represented by: A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fribo Foods Ltd (Wrexham, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 April 2009 in case R 824/2008-1; and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “Friboi”, for goods in class 29

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

      Mark or sign cited: United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Fribo” for goods in class 29; German trade mark registration of the word mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; French trade mark registration of the word mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; French trade mark registration of the figurative mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; Italian trade mark registration of the word mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; Italian trade mark registration of the figurative mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 42 Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred when taking into account evidence for proof of use submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal which did not meet the requirements of the said legal provision and did not show place, time, extent and nature of use.


title: Case T-381/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — IMG v Commission (Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Strengthened audit and monitoring measures and verification warning in the early warning system (EWS) — Decision suspending the possibility for the applicant to conclude contracts for indirect management with the Commission having regard to doubts regarding its status as an international organisation — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — No interest in bringing proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Application for damages)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — IMG v Commission
   (Case T-381/15) (1)

   ((Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Strengthened audit and monitoring measures and verification warning in the early warning system (EWS) - Decision suspending the possibility for the applicant to conclude contracts for indirect management with the Commission having regard to doubts regarding its status as an international organisation - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - No interest in bringing proceedings - Partial inadmissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Application for damages))
   (2017/C 078/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A.Tymen, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter in which that institution orders the strengthening of audit and monitoring measures and the issuing of a verification warning and refuses to allow the applicant to conclude contracts with the Commission for indirect management and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of the measures envisaged in that letter.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as International Management Group (IMG) seeks the annulment of the registration of a verification warning with regard to it in the early warning system;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible or unfounded as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders IMG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 4 November 1997 in Case C-20/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Commissioner): Kelvin Albert Snares v. The Adjudication Officer (Social security - Special non-contributory benefits - Articles 4 (2a) and 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Disability living allowance - Non-exportability)

text:
C 387/4                  EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 12 . 97
Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D.     A. O. Edward,                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L.     Sevon, Judges,
F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.              von Holstein,                             of 4 November 1997
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given     a judgment on
4 November 1997, in which it has ruled:                              in Case C-20/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Social Security Commissioner): Kelvin Albert Snares
                                                                                v. The Adjudication Officer (')
1 . where a question relating to the interpretation of the
     First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December             (Social security — Special non-contributory benefits —
     1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States               Articles 4 (2a) and 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
     relating to trade marks is raised in proceedings in one             — Disability living allowance — Non-exportability)
     of the Benelux Member States concerning the
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/07 )
     interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade
     Marks, a court against whose decisions there is no
     remedy under national law, as is the case with both
     the Benelux Court and the Hoge Raad der
     Nederlanden, must make a reference to the Court of                              (Language of the case: English)
     Justice under the third paragraph of Article 1 77 of the
     EC Treaty. However, that obligation loses its purpose
     and is thus emptied of its substance when the question
     raised is substantially the same as the question which
     has already been the subject of a preliminary ruling in         In Case C-20/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
     the same national proceedings;                                  of the EC Treaty from the Social Security Commissioner
                                                                     ( United Kingdom ), for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between Kelvin
2 . on a proper interpretation of Articles 5 and 7 of                Albert Snares and The Adjudication Officer — on the
     Directive 89/104, when trade-marked goods have been             interpretation and validity of Articles 4 ( 2a ) and 10a of
     put on the Community market by the proprietor of the            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
     trade mark or with his consent, a reseller, besides             on the application of social security schemes to employed
     being free to resell those goods, is also free to make          persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
     use of the trade mark in order to bring to the public 's        families moving within the Community, as amended and
     attention the further commercialization of those                updated by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2001 /83 of
     goods;                                                          2 June 1983 ( OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6 ), as subsequently
                                                                     amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1247/92 of
                                                                     30 April 1992 ( OJ 1992 L 136, p. 1 ) — the Court,
3 . the proprietor of a trade mark may not rely on                   composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C.
     Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104 to oppose the use of          Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of
     the trade mark, by a reseller who habitually markets            Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
     articles of the same kind, but not necessarily of the           ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
     same quality, as the trade-marked goods, in ways                Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevon,
     customary in the reseller's sector of trade, for the            Judges; P. Leger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     purpose of bringing to the public 's attention the              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     further commercialization of those goods, unless it is          4 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
     established that, given the specific circumstances of the
     case, the use of the trade mark for this purpose
     seriously damages the reputation of the trade mark;
                                                                     1 . on a proper construction of Article 10a of Council
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
4 . on a proper interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of                  application of social security schemes to employed
     the EC Treaty, the proprietor of a trade mark or                    persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
     holder of copyright may not oppose their use by a                   their families moving within the Community, as
     reseller who habitually markets articles of the same                amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
     kind, but not necessarily of the same quality, as the               No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, as subsequently amended
     protected goods, in ways customary in the reseller's                by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April
     sector of trade, for the purpose of bringing to the                 1992, read in conjunction with Annex 11a, disability
     public 's attention the further commercialization of                living allowance falls within the scope of that
     those goods, unless it is established that, having regard           provision and is therefore a special non-contributory
     to the specific circumstances of the case, the use of               benefit within the meaning of Article 4 (2a) of that
     those goods for that purpose seriously damages their                regulation, with the result that the position of a person
     reputation.                                                         such as the claimant in the main proceedings, who,
                                                                         after 1 June 1992 when Regulation No 1247/92
(') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .                                          entered into force, satisfied the conditions for the
                                                                         award of that benefit, is governed exclusively by the
                                                                         system of coordination established by the said
                                                                         Article 10a;
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 387/5
2 . examination of Regulation No 1247/92, in so far as it               concerned, be allocated on a pro rata basis, having regard
     sets aside, in the case of disability living allowance, the        to the distances covered in each such State.
     principle of waiver of residence clauses laid down in
     Article 10 of Regulation No 1408/71 , has not
                                                                        (') OJ C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
     disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect its
     validity.
(') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 November 1997
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                        in Case C- 164/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                              the Consiglio di Stato ): Regione Piemonte v. Saiagricola
                       of 6 November 1997                                                                 SpA n
                                                                        (Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 — Different treatment of
in Case C- 116/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the    Bundesfinanzhof):          Reisebiiro Binder    GmbH     v.
                                                                                individual farmers and legal persons)
            Finanzamt Stuttgart-Korperschaften (')                                                    ( 97/C 387/09 )
(Sixth VAT Directive — Cross-frontier passenger transport
— The place of supply and the taxable amount in relation
                       to transport services)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                             ( 97/C 387/08 )
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        In Case C-164/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          of the EC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                        court between Regione Piemonte and Saiagricola SpA —
                                                                        on the interpretation of Council Directive 72/159/EEC of
In Case C-l 16/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177            17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms ( OJ English
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
                                                                        Special Edition 1972 ( II ), p. 324 ) and Council Regulation
Finance Court ), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings            ( EEC ) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the
pending before that court between Reisebiiro Binder                     efficiency of agricultural structures ( OJ 1985 L 93 , p. 1 )
                                                                        — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: H.
GmbH and Finanzamt Stuttgart-Korperschaften — on the
interpretation of Article 9 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Sixth Council                Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                        and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        6 November 1997, in which it has ruled :
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment ( OJ 1977 L 145 , p. 1 ) — the
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,                   council Directive 72/159/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the
D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and P.                modernization of farms and Council Regulation (EEC)
Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate General; H. von                  No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a              of agricultural structures are to be interpreted as meaning
judgment on 6 November 1997, in which it has ruled :                    that Member States which introduce a register intended to
                                                                        determine eligibility under the system of aids established
                                                                        by Directive 72/159 are not permitted to refuse to register
                                                                        certain legal persons solely by reason of the legal form
article 9 (2) (b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of              they have assumed or to introduce a special system of
17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                     identification by creating a specific register intended for
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                       natural persons alone.
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the
supply of cross-frontier passenger transport on an all                 (') OJ C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
inclusive basis, the total consideration for that service
must, for the purposes of determining the part of the
transport operation taxable in each of the Member States


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-9/04 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Social security benefits — Accident — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Admissibility — Statement of reasons)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/39

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 July 2005
   in Case T-9/04 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Social security benefits - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Admissibility - Statement of reasons)
   (2005/C 217/86)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-9/04: Luigi Marcuccio, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Tricase (Italy), represented by M. Di Stefano and A. Distante, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application primarily for annulment of the Commission's implied decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 3 December 2002 with a view to securing acknowledgment of an accident under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Adminstrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 3 December 2002 with a view to securing acknowledgment of an accident under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

               2.

               Dismisses the claims for the Court to order measures of inquiry.

               3.

               Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 3.4.2004


title: Case T-260/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Mining and Others v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/38

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Mining and Others v Commission
   (Case T-260/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/46)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-247/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  19 September 2005  — Aseprofar and Edifa v Commission (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Challengeable act — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — Notification 2002/C 244/03)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2005 — Aseprofar and Edifa v Commission
   (Case T-247/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Admissibility - Challengeable act - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - Notification 2002/C 244/03)
   (2005/C 296/51)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) and Española de desarrollo e impulso farmacéutico, SA (Edifa) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer).

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, Agent).
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 March 2004 to take no further action in respect of complaint P/2002/4609 and of the Commission's decision of 30 March 2004 to take no further action in respect of complaint P/2003/5119, as regards Article 29 EC.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos and Española de desarrollo e impulso farmacéutico, SA are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.08.2004.


title: Case T-835/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Louvers Belgium v Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/53

         Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Louvers Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-835/16)
   (2017/C 030/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Louvers Belgium Company (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: V. Lejeune, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 September 2016 by which it rejected the applicant’s tender and awarded contract No OIB.02/PO/2016/012/703 to the RIDEAUPRESS ITLINE group;

               —

               uphold the claim for damages made by the applicant and, accordingly, order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the principal sum of EUR 387 500 as compensation for the damage sustained as a result of losing the contract, to be increased by default interest and judicially-determined interest calculated at the statutory rate until full payment is made;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the right of the applicant to good administration and the principle of transparency in so far as, despite repeated and insistent requests from the applicant, the Commission failed to inform it of the technical specifications of the successful tenderer’s products or of the results of the report analysing the bids and samples sent by it to the Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency and the principle of equal treatment of tenderers by the Commission both when drafting the tender specifications and when evaluating the bids submitted by tenderers. In particular, the applicant claims that:

                           —

                           First, when drafting the tender specifications, the defendant reproduced the technical characteristics and product photos included in a tender submitted by a tenderer in a previous procurement procedure, which had a similar subject matter but was cancelled without any justification being given, thus creating unjustified obstacles to competitive tendering;

                           —

                           Secondly, the defendant infringed the fundamental rule of equality of tenderers by laying down technical requirements which were highly restrictive and unjustified from a technical point of view and were obviously intended to match the products of a particular economic operator;

                           —

                           Thirdly, the defendant failed objectively and independently to assess the tender submitted by the applicant in the procurement procedure at issue and unjustifiably rejected it since the applicant’s products complied fully with the minimum technical requirements set out in the tender specifications and therefore fulfilled all of the criteria required.

         Accordingly, in the context of this second plea, the applicant claims that the tender which it had submitted was technically compliant and therefore admissible. The European Commission ought to have assessed the financial merits of that tender and it would consequently have been required to award the contract to the applicant given that it had proposed the lowest price.


title: Case C-191/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-191/12)
   2012/C 243/02
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can the fact that a taxpayer — where there is a prohibition on deduction — has obtained aid in such a manner that this also funds VAT or has obtained additional State aid as compensation for non-deductible VAT be categorised as the passing on of tax according to Community law?

               2.

               If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be the same if the taxpayer did not receive the aid from a Member State or from the tax authority of a Member State, but instead the aid was paid — pursuant to the contract concluded with the person granting the aid — from European Union aid and the Member State’s central budget?

               3.

               Can the principles of repayment based on fiscal neutrality and of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment be regarded as satisfied, and the prohibition on unjust enrichment complied with, where — owing to legislation on the right to deduct that is contrary to European Union law — the tax authority of a Member State only upholds the taxpayer’s claim for repayment or damages in relation to that part or proportion not previously funded through the aid referred to in the first two questions?


title: Case C-29/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/25

         Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-29/07)
   (2007/C 56/47)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2003/110 into domestic law expired on 6 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 26.


title: Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Maria Lidia Lozano Palacios against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-33/95)

text:
No C 101 /14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 4 . 95
      incomplete and fragmentary; (c ) it refused to hear the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      applicant in relation to certain allegations which have
      resulted in the imposition of a fine; ( d ) it called upon the   The applicant states that, prior to being recruited following
      applicant to submit a defence against incomplete and             an open competition, she was seconded to the Commission
      fragmentary objections; and (e) it included in the               as a national expert; she therefore established her residence
      decision fresh accusations against the applicant which           in Brussels for a period limited to the duration of her
      were not levelled as such against the applicant in the           secondment, whilst retaining her principal residence in
      statement of objections.                                         Madrid. She now contests the fixing of Brussels as her place
                                                                       of recruitment .
— Infringement of one or more higher-ranking rules of law,
      including Article 85 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty,           The action is based on infringements of Article 71 of the
      Regulation No 17/62 and general legal principles:                Staff Regulations, of Articles 5 , 7, 8 , 9 and 10 of Annex VII
                                                                       to the Staff Regulations and of Article 2 of the general
      The Commission has failed to show that the applicant             provisions implementing Article 7 of Annex VII, as well as a
      acted contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty. More              manifest error of assessment. The applicant complains that
      particularly, it has not demonstrated that the applicant         the Commission disregarded the fact that she did not have a
      'participated' in the Cembureau agreement or in any              fixed and settled residence in Brussels and that Madrid was
      concerted practice relating to the exchange of price             still the permanent centre of her interests.
      information .
      Lastly, the applicant contends that the fine imposed on it
      should be cancelled or reduced, since it is not consonant
      with all the charges made against it, those charges are
      not supported by sufficient evidence and the fine
      imposed on it is inadequately reasoned .                         Action brought on 17 February 1995 by SA des Ciments
                                                                       Luxembourgeois against the Commission of the European
I 1 ) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                                       Communities
                                                                                (Case T-34/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/32 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Maria Lidia
Lozano Palacios against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                An action against the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (Case T-33/95 )                              Communities on 17 February 1995 by SA des Ciments
                           ( 95/C 101 /31 )                            Luxembourgeois of Esch-sur-Alzette ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
                 (Language of the case: French)                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                       of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
Instance of the European Communities on 16 February
1995 by Maria Lidia Lozano Palacios, residing in Brussels,             1 , annul Articles 1 , Article 2 ( 1 ) and (2 ) and Article 9 of
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an                Commission Decision C(94 ) 3077 final of 30 November
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire               1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.                                                 Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), in so
                                                                            far as they concern the applicant;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       2 , in the alternative, reduce the fine of ECU 1 052 000
— annul the decision of the Commission of 12 April 1994                     imposed on the applicant by Article d of the contested
      in so far as it fixes Brussels as the applicant place of              decision to a reasonable sum;
      recruitment,
                                                                       3 , order the Commission to pay the costs .
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the installation
      allowance and daily subsistence allowance with default
      interest at the annual rate of 8% from the date of               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      becoming due until the date of payment, together with
      repayment of her travel expenses and expenditure                 The applicant raises the following procedural objections :
      incurred or to be incurred in the removal of her effects to
      Brussels, and                                                    — the Commission prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair
                                                                            hearing, in that it communicated to it only certain parts
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                    of the statement of objections,


title: Case C-622/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-92/13: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/25

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-92/13: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v European Commission
   (Case C-622/15 P)
   (2016/C 027/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J. K. de Pree, S. Molin, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-92/13;

               —

               annul in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(c) and 1.2(f), Articles 2.1(c) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(c) and 2.2(e) of the Commission Decision of 5 December 2012 in Case COMP/39437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes (the ‘Decision’), insofar as they concern KPNV; and/or reduce the fines imposed on KPNV in Articles 2.1(c) and 2.1(e) and Articles 2.2(c) and 2.2(e) of the Decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following main pleas and arguments:
   The General Court erred in law in the application of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Regulation No. 1/2003 (1) by holding that the Commission could characterize the sales of Cathode Ray Tubes (‘CRTs’) made by the LPD Group to the Philips Group (and the LGE Group) as intragroup sales and by holding that the Commission was entitled to include the value of Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products (‘DSTP’) in the calculation of KPNV's fine, where it concerned downstream sales of computer screens and colour televisions by subsidiaries of KPNV incorporating CRTs supplied by the LPD Group.
   The General Court erred in law by holding that the Commission did not violate KPNV's rights of defence when it chose — even in the circumstances of this case — not to include the LPD Group in the administrative proceedings and issue a statement of objections to it on the ground that KPNV would have a general duty of care to keep records in its books and files regarding the activities of the LPD Group, even in case of the bankruptcy of LPD.
   The General Court committed an error of assessment in that it misrepresented the plea raised by KPNV regarding the treatment of DSTP and thereby failed to address one of the main grounds of appeal of KPNV against the Decision. The appellant further submits it was deprived of the protection of the fundamental principle of equal treatment in that the General Court failed to recognize that different legal standards were applied to different undertakings in determining the basis for the calculation of the fine. This discriminatory treatment resulted in a significantly higher fine for KPNV.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

      OJ L 1, p. 1.


title: Removal from the register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00, C-420/00, C-123/01, C-237/01, C-238/01 and C-15/02

text:
14.9.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 219/11
       —     in Artois-Picardie: the coastal waters and, for main-        Removal from the register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00,
             land waters, the hydrographic system between the               C-420/00, C-123/01, C-237/01, C-238/01 and C-15/02 ( 1)
             canalised Aa and the Escaut on the one hand and
             the Belgian border on the other hand, the Scarpe
             downstream from Arras, the Lens Canal downstream                                      (2002/C 219/20)
             from Lens and the whole of the Somme;
       —     in Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse: the River Vistre and
             Thau lake.                                                   By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
—      Lack of more stringent treatment for urban waste water             register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00, C-420/00, C-123/01,
       discharges with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more             C-237/01, C-238/01 et C-15/02 (Referral for a preliminary
       than 10 000: The French authorities had admitted that              ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans
       for 130 agglomerations the equipment for treating urban            Oppitz and Others v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt
       waste water was not, by the deadline of 31 December                Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg.
       1998, in compliance with the requirements of the
       Directive. While those authorities, in their response to
       the reasoned opinion, specify that the discharges of some          (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001, OJ C 28 of
                                                                               27.1.2001, OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ
       of those 130 agglomerations are in fact now subject to
                                                                               C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
       such treatment, only the agglomerations of Vichy, Aix en
       Provence and Mâcon can actually be removed from the
       list of the abovementioned 130 agglomerations. For
       others, the reply states that the necessary equipment will
       only come into service at a future date. That is the case
       for Boulogne-sur-mer (2005), Clermont-Ferrand (2004),
       Saint-Etienne (2005), Mulhouse (2003), Nancy (autumn
       2002), Dijon (2005), Montpellier (2004), Tarare (2003),
       Villefranche sur Saône (2004), Vitrolles (2005) and                        Removal from the register of Case C-128/01 ( 1)
       Auxerre (2004).
       The inadequate identification of sensitive areas has inevi-                                 (2002/C 219/21)
       tably resulted in the obligation in Article 5(2) of the
       Directive not being taken into account in the areas
       concerned.
                                                                          By order of 27 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
( 1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.5.1991 concerning urban           register of Case C-128/01: Commission of the European
     waste water treatment (OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991), p. 40.                Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
Removal from the register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00
                          and C-319/00 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 219/19)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-143/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/22)
By order of 31 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00 and C-319/00 (Referral
for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat
                                                                          By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Salzburg): Neubau Gesellschaft mbH and Others v Grundver-
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
kehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslan-
                                                                          register of Case C-143/01: Commission of the European
deskommission des Landes Salzburg.
                                                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000, OJ C 302 of
     21.10.2000.                                                          (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case C-504/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, Hungary, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme — National allocation plan for emission allowances for the Republic of Poland for the period 2008 to 2012 — Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87 — Respective competences of the Commission and the Member States — Equal treatment)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, Hungary, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-504/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - National allocation plan for emission allowances for the Republic of Poland for the period 2008 to 2012 - Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87 - Respective competences of the Commission and the Member States - Equal treatment)
   2012/C 151/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. Kružíková and K. Herrmann and by E. White, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Commission: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland (represented by M. Szpunar, M. Nowacki and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents), Hungary, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Maurici, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the Republic of Poland: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Romania (represented by V. Angelescu and A. Cazacioc, advisers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 23 September 2009 in Case T-183/07 Poland v Commission, by which that Court annulled Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Ne ultra petita principle — Limits of judicial review — Infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Misinterpretation of Article 296 TFEU, of Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and of Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 3(1) of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Romania and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-424/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK v OHIM — Sportfive (QUALIFIER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark QUALIFIER — Earlier Community word mark Qualifiers 2006 — Refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK v OHIM — Sportfive (QUALIFIER)
   (Case T-424/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark QUALIFIER - Earlier Community word mark Qualifiers 2006 - Refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 32/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sportfive GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2009 (Case R 1291/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sportfive GmbH & Co. KG and Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case F-11/09: Action brought on 8 February 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/40

         Action brought on 8 February 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-11/09)
   2009/C 90/64
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment of the decision by which the Commission refused a request for 100% reimbursement of a number of medical expenses incurred by the applicant

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision refusing the two requests of 27 December 2007 for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the applicant;

               —

               Annul, so far as is necessary, the memorandum dated 16 October 2008;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the applicant, by way of 100% reimbursement of medical costs, the sum of EUR 356,18 or such lesser sum as the Civil Service Tribunal may consider just and appropriate, together with interest on that amount, to be applied with effect from the first day of the fifth month following the day on which both requests were received by the addressee, at the rate of 10% per annum, with annual capitalisation, or at such rate and capitalisation and from such commencement date as the Civil Service Tribunal may consider just;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-172/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Arrangement for sharing clients on a private pension fund market — Whether there is a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE — Effect on trade between Member States)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței
   (Case C-172/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Arrangement for sharing clients on a private pension fund market - Whether there is a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE - Effect on trade between Member States))
   (2015/C 302/09)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA

      Defendant: Consiliul Concurenței

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that agreements to share clients, such as those concluded between the private pensions funds in the main proceedings, constitute agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-316/02: Action brought on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude Girardot against theCommission of the European Communities

text:
C 305/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          They claim that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and
                                                                          in law in finding that, with respect to anti-doping rules, the
—     the retroactive application of the contested decision               IOC is not an undertaking for the purposes of Community
      infringes the principles underlying recovery of sums                law. It is clear that the IOC cannot be treated in the same way
      overpaid and, in particular, Article 85 of the Staff                as a public institution providing social security services and
      Regulations as well as the principles of legitimate expec-          that it does not exercise the prerogatives of a public authority.
      tations and sound administration;                                   Moreover, the rules in question affect the conduct of all
                                                                          athletes on the market for the sports which the applicants
                                                                          perform.
—     for the purpose of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations, the
      orphan’s pension is not of like nature to the dependent
      child allowance. Therefore, the payments made by the
      administration until February 2002 were not manifestly              In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission commit-
      irregular; rather, it is the deductions under the contested         ted a manifest error of assessment in finding that, in the
      decision which are in point of fact irregular.                      present case, the limitation on the freedom of athletes is not a
                                                                          restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81
                                                                          EC, on the ground that such a limitation is inherent in the
                                                                          organisation and smooth running of competitive sport. The
                                                                          Commission’s findings constitute a manifest misapplication of
                                                                          the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in paragraph 97
                                                                          of the judgment in Wouters ( 1) and the restrictive effects of the
                                                                          IOC rules in question are clearly not inherent in the pursuit of
                                                                          the praiseworthy aims of the campaign against doping.
Action brought on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
                                                                          According to the applicants, it is for the Commission — in
Medina and Igor Majcen against the Commission of the                      accordance with the ‘necessity test’ and/or the ‘proportionality
                    European Communities
                                                                          test’ — to declare that a rule which has been proven to have
                                                                          no scientific basis can in no way satisfy the requirements of
                          (Case T-313/02)                                 such tests.
                         (2002/C 305/62)
                                                                          Finally, the Commission’s assessment is manifestly incorrect in
                                                                          so far as it fails to recognise Article 49 EC as having any direct
                   (Language of the case: French)                         horizontal effect. It must be found that, since they do not
                                                                          satisfy a ‘test of necessity’, the contested IOC rules also infringe
                                                                          Article 49 EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (1 ) Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577.
European Communities on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
Medina, residing in Barcelona (Spain), and Igor Majcen, residing
in Ljubljana (Slovenia), represented by J.-L. Dupont, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision notified to the appli-
      cants on 5 August 2002 rejecting the complaint of                   Action brought on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude
      31 May 2001 against the International Olympic Com-                  Girardot against the Commission of the European Com-
      mittee;                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-316/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 305/63)
By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the
complaint lodged by the applicants, who are professional                                       (Language of the case: French)
swimmers, that certain practices and rules of the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) concerning the fight against doping
were contrary to European competition law. The applicants
objected, in particular, to the fact that, in connection with the
detection of the substance nandrolone, the IOC continues to               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
apply a maximum level which has now been found to lack                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
scientific merit.                                                         European Communities on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 305/31
Girardot, residing at L’Haye les Roses (France), represented            temporary staff should not possess skills and abilities at least
by Eric Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in                equal to, if not superior to, those of candidates who are in the
Luxembourg.                                                             service of the institution only by virtue of their status as
                                                                        members of the temporary staff. Thus, the Commission was
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             not in a position to show that the exclusion of a candidate
                                                                        who has been a national expert on secondment prior to
—     annul the decisions of the selection board of 5 and 30 July       becoming a member of the temporary staff can be justified in
      2001 to exclude from consideration the application of             the interests of the service.
      the applicant in internal competition COM/R/502211/
      2001, as advertised in the combined notice of vacancies           In support of her action, the applicant also pleads:
      and of internal competitions of 28 May 2001;
                                                                        —     infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the
—     annul the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s                  Staff Regulations;
      complaint, the said complaint having been lodged on
      29 January 2002 and rejected by an express decision               —     infringement of the general principle of equality of
      receipt of which was acknowledged by the applicant on                   treatment;
      15 July 2002;
                                                                        —     infringement of the general principle that all administrat-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.                      ive decisions must be based on legally valid reasons;
                                                                        —     infringement of the first paragraph of Article 4 and the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant entered the service of the Commission on
1 February 1996. She initially worked there as a national
expert on secondment and subsequently as a member of the
temporary staff. She applied to take part in internal compe-                    Removal from the register of Case T-116/02 (1)
tition COM/R/502211/2001 for the recruitment of officials.
According to information received by her, the selection board                                    (2002/C 305/64)
for that competition found that, as at 1 January 2001, she had
not completed five years’ service as a member of the temporary                             (Language of the case: French)
staff, so that her name could not be included in the list of
candidates admitted to the tests.
                                                                        By order of 10 September 2002 the President of the Fifth
The applicant contests that rejection. She argues that account          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
should also have been taken of the period during which she              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-116/02: Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European
was in the Commission’s service as a national expert on
secondment. There is nothing to suggest, prima facie, that a            Communities.
candidate in an internal competition who has been a national
expert on secondment prior to being a member of the                     (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.


title: Case C-648/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-648/11)
   2012/C 65/12
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: MA, BT, DA

      Defendants: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Interested party: Aire Centre

      Questions referred

               1.

               In Regulation 343/2003/EC establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ L 50 25 February 2003 p. l), where an applicant for asylum who is an unaccompanied minor with no member of his or her family legally present in another Member State has lodged claims for asylum in more than one Member State, which Member State does the second paragraph of article 6 make responsible for determining the application for asylum?


title: Case T-352/99: Action brought on 9 December 1999 by M against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
Action brought on 8 December 1999 by Bogoljub Karic,                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Dragomir Karic, Milenka Karic, Sreten Karic and Zoran
     Karic against the Council of the European Union                     — annul the Commission’s decision of 9 February 1999
                                                                             considering the applicant’s absences from 8 to 17 Decemb-
                        (Case T-350/99)                                      er 1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been unauthorised
                                                                             and deducting them from annual leave entitlement;
                         (2000/C 79/76)                                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                  (Language of the case: English)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  The applicant contests the legality of the decision to consider
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               her absences because of sickness to have been unauthorised
Communities on 8 December 1999 by Bogoljub Karic and                     and to deduct them from annual leave entitlement. The
four others, represented by Nicolas Rollason and Tim Eicke,              applicant takes the view that by not enabling her to challenge
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             effectively the institution’s medical officer’s refusal to accept
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill.                     the medical certificate produced to justify her absences because
                                                                         of sickness, the Commission infringed Article 59(1) and (3) of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              the Staff Regulations, as well as her rights of defence and the
                                                                         obligation to state reasons. She maintains, furthermore, that
— declare void the Council Decision 1999/612/CFSP and/or                 the medical officer committed a manifest error of assessment
    the decision apparently adopted on 6 December 1999, not              by refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of her medical
    yet published in the Official Journal but press-released on          complaint.
    the Council’s website on 6 December 1999;
— order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants             Action brought on 10 December 1999 by NV Calberson
are similar to those put forward in Case T-349/99. Moreover,             Belgium against the Commission of the European Com-
the applicants submit that the contested decisions prevent                                            munities
them from exercising their right to family life as protected by
Article 8(1) ECHR and Article 6(2) EU.                                                            (Case T-353/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/78)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Action brought on 9 December 1999 by M against Com-                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            mission of the European Communities                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 December 1999 by NV Calber-
                                                                         son Belgium, having its registered office in Bornem (Belgium),
                        (Case T-352/99)                                  represented by L. Gheysens, of the Law Firm Gheysens &
                                                                         Partners, Wevelgem (Belgium), with an address for service in
                         (2000/C 79/77)                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Reding, 2 Rue J.-P.
                                                                         Brasseur.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                — annul Commission Decision C(1999) 2140 final of 19 July
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   1999 (file Rec 8/98 — client: Lema) and Commission
European Communities on 9 December 1999 by M, represent-                     Decision C(1999) 2143 final of 19 July 1999 (file Rec
ed by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and                        9/98 — client: Consumer Electronic Service);
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion               — declare that [the import duties in issue] should not be the
Fiduciaire, 2-4 rue Beck.                                                    subject of post-clearance recovery from the applicant;


title: Case T-659/14: Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CARLOTTE)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/23

         Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CARLOTTE)
   (Case T-659/14)
   2014/C 388/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso da Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2014 given in Case R 946/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘PORT CARLOTTE’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark No 5 4 21  474

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g), Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with article 8(4) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the cancellation request

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-25/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Alicja Sosnowska v Izba Skarbowa we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Alicja Sosnowska v Izba Skarbowa we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu
   (Case C-25/07)
   (2007/C 69/15)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alicja Sosnowska

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izba Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, in conjunction with Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC (1) of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes and Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, confer on a Member State the right to incorporate into national provisions on the tax on goods and services the rules laid down in Articles 97(5) and (7) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 …?

               2.

               Do the rules laid down in Articles 97(5) and (7) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług of 11 March 2004 … constitute special measures to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive?

      (1)  OJ L 71, 1967, p. 1301.

      (2)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-206/04 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 March 2006  — Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Zirh International Corp. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ZIRH — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark SIR)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 March 2006 — Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Zirh International Corp.
   (Case C-206/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ZIRH - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark SIR)
   (2006/C 131/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen and C. Musiol, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and A. von Mühlendahl, Agents)

      Intervener: Zirh International Corp., (represented by L. Kouker)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2004 in Case T-355/02 Mülhens v OHIM, by which it dismissed an action for annulment of the rejection of the opposition by the proprietor of an earlier mark to the registration of a trade mark — Similarity of the marks — Art. 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.


title: Case C-543/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 22 November 2010 — Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 22 November 2010 — Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA
   (Case C-543/10)
   2011/C 46/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Refcomp SpA

      Defendants: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a clause conferring jurisdiction which has been agreed, in a chain of contracts under Community law, between a manufacturer of goods and a buyer in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 of 20 December 2000 (1) effective as against the sub-buyer and, if so, under what conditions?

               2.

               Is the clause conferring jurisdiction effective as against the sub-buyer and its subrogated insurers even if Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 of 20 December 2000 does not apply to the sub-buyer’s action against the manufacturer, as the Court held in its judgment of 17 June 1992 in Handte
                   (2)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1)

      (2)  Judgment of 17 June 1992, Handte, C-26/91, ECR 1992, p. I-03967


title: Case T-306/12: Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Spirlea v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/18

         Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Spirlea v Commission
   (Case T-306/12)
   2012/C 273/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Cappezzano Paimore, Italy) and Mihaela Spirlea (Cappezzano Piamore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               accept the present application made on the basis of Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               declare the action admissible; and

               —

               declare it well founded, and accordingly find that the Commission has committed substantial procedural irregularities and other substantive errors of law;

               —

               on that basis annul the decision of the European Commission’s Secretariat-General of 21 June 2012 (SG.B.5/MKu/psi-Ares (2012)744102), in so far it concerns the letters of information of the Commission of 10 May 2011 and 10 October 2011;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               Infringement of the duty to investigate and the extent of such an examination under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

               The applicants claim that the Commission infringed the duty to investigate ‘exceptions’ under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the extent to which such an investigation is to be carried out.

               2.

               Infringement of the duty to state reasons in the second decision of 21 June 2012 in Cases GestDem 2012/1073 and 2012/1251
               The applicants allege an infringement of the duty to state reasons in refusing access to the information letters of the Commission of 10 May 2011 and 10 October 2011 to the extent required by law.

               3.

               Equating the ‘informal’ EU pilot procedure with the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in Article 258 TFEU.
               In this regard, the applicants submit that the equating of the ‘informal’ EU pilot procedure with the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in Article 258 TFEU constitutes an error of law.

               4.

               Erroneous assessment of the partial access to the documents
               In this regard, the applicants argue that the Commission disregarded the right to partial access to the information letters under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and manifestly failed to carry out a concrete examination.

               5.

               Infringement of the principles of proportionality/‘overriding public interest’
               The applicants submit, in this regard, that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality, since it failed to correctly weigh up the exception relied on of “protection of the purpose of investigations” against the “overriding public interest” (Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

               6.

               Infringement of communication COM(2002) 141
               The applicants claim, in this respect, that the Commission systematically infringed — to the applicants’ detriment — its self-imposed rules for handling complaints from EU-citizens and, consequently, infringed on a continual basis its commitment to bind itself by its own rules (Annex to communication COM(2002) 141).

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-391/06: Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Karstadt Quelle v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (S-HE)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/31

         Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Karstadt Quelle v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (S-HE)
   (Case T-391/06)
   (2007/C 42/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Karstadt Quelle Aktiengesellschaft (Essen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: dm drogerie markt GmbH
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) No R 301/2006-1 of 26 September 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: dm drogerie markt GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘S-HE’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 766 723).

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘SHE’ for goods in Classes 3 and 25, German figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25, and international figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial granting of the appeal, partial rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), on the ground that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-405/13: Order of the President of the Court of 17 octobre 2014 — European Commission v Romania, intervening parties: Republic of Estonia, Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/22

      Order of the President of the Court of 17 octobre 2014 — European Commission v Romania, intervening parties: Republic of Estonia, Kingdom of the Netherlands
      (Case C-405/13) (1)

      (2015/C 016/32)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      The President of the Grand Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-462/00: Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
10.2.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 45/15
Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission                      Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                       of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria                                                                       Austria
                         (Case C-461/00)                                                             (Case C-462/00)
                          (2001/C 45/28)                                                              (2001/C 45/29)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
21 December 2000 by the Commission of the European                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its            21 December 2000 by the Commission of the European
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,              Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                           the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply in             (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      the Province of Burgenland with European Parliament                       administrative measures necessary in order to comply in
      and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997                         the Province of Burgenland with Directive 98/4/EC of the
      amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and                              European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February
      93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures                       1998 amending Directive 93/38/EEC coordinating the
      for the award of public service contracts, public supply                  procurement procedures of entities operating in the
      contracts and public works contracts respectively (1), and                water, energy, transport and telecommunications sec-
      by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic                 tors (1), and by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC              the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
      Treaty and under Article 4 of that directive;                             under the EC Treaty and under Article 2 of that directive;
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       (2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
                                                                          in Case C-461/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
obliges Member States to transpose directives addressed to
                                                                          on 16 February 1999.
them into national law within the time-limit prescribed for so
doing. That time-limit expired on 1 October 1998.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 1.
(1) OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1.                                                  (2) See p. 15 of this Official Journal.


title: Case C-423/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security Commissioner, London, by direction of that tribunal dated 14 September 2004, in the case of Sarah Margaret Richards against Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security Commissioner, London, by direction of that tribunal dated 14 September 2004, in the case of Sarah Margaret Richards against Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-423/04)
   (2004/C 300/58)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by direction of a Social Security Commissioner, London, dated 14 September 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 October 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sarah Margaret Richards and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the following questions:

               (1)

               Does Directive 79/7 (1) prohibit the refusal of a retirement pension to a male-to-female transsexual until she reaches the age of 65 and who would have been entitled to such a pension at the age of 60 had she been held to be a woman as a matter of national law?

               (2)

               If so, from what date should the Court's ruling on question 1 have effect?

      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6, 10.01.1979, p. 24).