title: Case T-488/08: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS — Earlier Community word marks GALILEO — Earlier Community figurative mark powered by Galileo — Earlier Community figurative marks GALILEO INTERNATIONAL — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)
   (Case T-488/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS’ - Earlier Community word marks ‘GALILEO’ - Earlier Community figurative mark ‘powered by Galileo’ - Earlier Community figurative marks ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 340/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño and P. Bullock, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 403/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Galileo International Technology, LLC and Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Galileo International Technology, LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case C-243/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Charleroi lodged on 30 May 2006 — SA Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupment des clubs de football européens v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Charleroi lodged on 30 May 2006 — SA Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupment des clubs de football européens v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA)
   (Case C-243/06)
   (2006/C 212/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de commerce de Charleroi
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: SA Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupment des clubs de football européens

      Defendant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA)
   Question referred
   Do the obligations on clubs and football players having employment contracts with those clubs imposed by the provisions of FIFA's statutes and regulations providing for the obligatory release of players to national federations without compensation and the unilateral and binding determination of the coordinated international match calendar constitute unlawful restrictions of competition or abuses of a dominant position or obstacles to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms conferred by the EC Treaty and are they therefore contrary to Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty or to any other provision of Community law, particularly Articles 39 and 49 of the Treaty?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 1997 in Case C-122/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Stephen Austin Saldanha and MTS Securities Corporation v. Hiross Holding AG (Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Dual nationality - Scope of application of the Treaty - Security for costs)

text:
22 . 11 . 97           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 357/5
1 . dismisses the application;                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
2 . orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;
                                                                                of 2 October 1997
3 . orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Commission to                 in Case C- 144/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     bear their own costs .                                            the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles ): Office National des
                                                                                Pensions ( ONP) v. Maria Cirotti (')
(') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                       (Social security — Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 1408/71 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/09 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                         of 2 October 1997
in Case C-122/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Stephen Austin Saldanha and                           published in the European Court Reports)
    MTS Securities Corporation v. Hiross Holding AG ( 1 )
(Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of
nationality — Dual nationality — Scope of application of               In Case C- 144/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                the Treaty — Security for costs)                       of the EC Treaty from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles
                                                                       ( Higher Labour Court, Brussels ) for a preliminary ruling
                            ( 97/C 357/08 )
                                                                       in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                       Office National des Pensions ( ONP) and Maria Cirotti —
                (Language of the case: German)                         on the interpretation of Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation
                                                                       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                       application of social security schemes to employed
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
           published in the European Court Reports)                    families moving within the Community ( OJ, English
                                                                       Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 ), as amended and
In Case C-122/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177            updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
of the EC Treaty from the Oberster Gerichtshof ( Austrian              2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ) — the Court
                                                                       ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
Supreme Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Stephen
                                                                       of the Chamber, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), P. J. G.
                                                                       Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G.
Austin Saldanha and MTS Securities Corporation and
Hiross Holding AG — on the interpretation of the first                 Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       2 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and H.
Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has           Articles 46 and 51 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
given a judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it has                    of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of
ruled :                                                                social security schemes to employed persons, to self
                                                                       employed persons and to members of their families
The first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be              moving within the Community, as amended and updated
construed as precluding a Member State from requiring                  by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983,
provision of security for costs by a national of another               must be interpreted as precluding the share of an
Member State who is also a national of a non-member                    employed person 's old-age pension granted to that
country, in which he is resident, where that national, who             person 's separated spouse under the legislation of a
is not resident and has no assets in the first Member State,           Member State from being recalculated by reference to
                                                                       alterations arising from general economic and social
has brought proceedings before one of its civil courts in
his capacity as a shareholder against a company                        developments in an invalidity benefit received by that
established in that Member State, if such a requirement is             separated spouse under the legislation of another Member
                                                                       State.
not imposed on its own nationals who are not resident
and have no assets there.
                                                                        (') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
(') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Action brought on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-253/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 248/7
Action brought on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
    European Communities against the French Republic
                           Case C-252/95 )                               — declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                              in order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC ( 1 )
                            ( 95/C 248/ 13 )
                                                                              of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
                                                                              procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
An action against the French Republic was brought before                      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                           obligations under the third paragraph of Articles 189 of
20 July 1995 by the Commission of the European                                the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 44 ( 1 ) of the
Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, acting as                           said Directive,
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                        — declare, in the alternative, that by failing promptly to
Kirchberg .                                                                   communicate to the Commission the texts of the
                                                                              relevant provisions transposing the Directive, the
                                                                              Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  obligations,
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,               — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                   costs .
     comply, as regards epizootic haemorrhagic disease
     of deer, with Council Directive 92/119/EEC ( ] ) of
     17 December 1992 introducing general Community                      The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
     measures for the control of certain ainmal diseases and             the same as those in Case C-252/95 ; the time-limit for
     specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease,              transposition expired on 1 July 1993 .
     and/or by failing to communicate them to the
     Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its            (!) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
     obligations under Article 27 of the abovementioned
     directive and under the Treaty;
2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
                                                                         Stato in sede giurisdizionale (Sezione Quarta) by order of
                                                                         that court of 21 March 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) S. Agri snc
The binding nature of the third subparagraph of Article 189                      and (2 ) Agricola Veneta sas v. Regione Veneto
and the first subparagraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty
requires the Member States to adopt the measures necessary                                          Case C-255/95 )
to transpose into national law the directives addressed to                                           ( 95/C 248/15 )
them before the expiration of the time-limit set for that
purpose . When the deadline set in Article 27 ( 1 ) of Directive         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 92/119/EEC expired on 30 September 1993 , France had not                European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di
taken the necessary measures as regards the control of                   Stato in sede giurisdizionale (Sezione Quarta) ( Fourth
epizootic haemorrhagic disease of deer.                                  Chamber of the Council of State, Judicial Division ) of
                                                                         21 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
 (!) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 69 .                               on 24 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         (1 ) S. Agri snc and ( 2 ) Agricola Veneta sas v. Regione Veneto
                                                                         on the following questions :
                                                                          1 . is a provision of national law which, in the event of a
                                                                               period of time elapsing between the end of the reference
                                                                               period and the beginning of the period of the
 Action brought on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                       undertaking, takes into account not only the output ( the
 European Communities against the Federal Republic of                          number of units of lifestock ) for the reference period, in
                                Germany                                        relation to output to be achieved during the period of the
                          ( Case C-253/95 )                                    undertaking, but also fluctuations in output occurring
                             ( 95/C 248/ 14 )
                                                                               during that intermediate period, compatible with the
                                                                               Community legal order, in particular Article lb ( 3 ) ( c ) of
                                                                               Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 797/85 ( ] ) of 12 March
 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                         1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           structures, inserted by Article 1 of Council Regulation
 Communities on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                          ( EEC ) No 1094/88 ( 2 ) of 25 April 1988 , and with
 European Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt,                         Articles 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), 7 and 10 ( 1 ) of Commission
 of the Legal Service, with an address for service in                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 4115/88 ( 3 ) of 21 December 1988
 Luxembourg at the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner                       laying down detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to
 Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      promote the extension of production ?


title: Case T-696/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2014 by Bernat Montagut Viladot against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/58

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2014 by Bernat Montagut Viladot against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut v Commission
   (Case T-696/14 P)
   2014/C 409/79
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Bernat Montagut Viladot (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by F. Rodríguez-Gigirey Pérez and J. Simón Sánchez, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut v Commission;

               —

               uphold the action brought by Mr Montagut Viladot in Case F-160/12, holding it to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               grant the form of order sought by that party at first instance in accordance with Article 139 of the Rules of Procedure, annulling the decision dated 8 February 2012 by which Mr Montagut was excluded from the reserve list of selected candidates; and

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut Viladot v Commission, rejecting the action brought by the then applicant against the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/206/11 (AD 5) not to include his name on the reserve list drawn up following that competition.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law resulting from the interpretation of the rules in Title 3, point 2, of the annex to the competition notice made by the Civil Service Tribunal and from the interpretation of the Spanish legislation on university diplomas.

                           —

                           It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal focuses exclusively on the fact that Mr Montagut’s university diploma is not an ‘official diploma’, a fact which he neither contests nor denies, without considering, contrary to its own case-law, that Mr Montagut’s diploma is a university diploma, which is the condition required in the competition notice, namely, ‘a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma’.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the principle of legal certainty.

                           —

                           It is claimed in this regard that the Tribunal, in its judgment, failed properly and correctly to consider the Spanish legislation — Ley de Universidades 6/2001 — in connection with Mr Montagut’s university qualification for the purposes of inclusion on the reserve list, failed to comply with its own case-law in similar cases (F-97/12 Thomé v Commission), and disregarded the conditions of the notice in Title 3, point 2, of the annex to the competition notice.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal, in its judgment, did not correctly assess Mr Montagut’s legitimate expectation that he would be included on the reserve list after the communication of 12 August 2011, as the judgment under appeal refers only to compliance with the applicable rules.


title: Case F-48/14: Action brought on 22 May 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/35

         Action brought on 22 May 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-48/14)
   2014/C 235/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment, firstly, of the decision of 14 February 2014 by which the selection board in selection procedure EU Careers EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-AD 5 confirmed, after re-examination, the initial decision of the selection board of 3 October 2013 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre stage of the competition and, secondly, insofar as necessary, of the initial decision of the selection board of 3 October 2013.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the competition selection board of 14 February 2014 and 3 October 2013 pursuant to which her application to competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-AD 5 was rejected;

               —

               Make any other appropriate orders in that regard;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay an amount of EUR 5  000, or any other amount, even greater, to be determined by the Civil Service Tribunal ex aequo et bono, in compensation for the vexatious nature of the treatment of her application;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case.


title: Case C-201/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012 — Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012 — Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel
   (Case C-201/12)
   2012/C 217/16
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Z

      Respondent: Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation form a particular social group as referred to in Article 10(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304; ‘the Directive’)?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: which homosexual activities fall within the scope of the Directive and, in the case of acts of persecution in respect of those activities and if the other requirements are met, can that lead to the granting of refugee status? That question encompasses the following subquestions:

                           (a)

                           Can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to conceal their orientation from everyone in their country of origin in order to avoid persecution?

                           (b)

                           If the previous question is to be answered in the negative, can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to exercise restraint, and if so, to what extent, when giving expression to that orientation in their country of origin, in order to avoid persecution? Moreover, can greater restraint be expected of homosexuals than of heterosexuals?

                           (c)

                           If, in that regard, a distinction can be made between forms of expression which relate to the core area of the orientation and forms of expression which do not, what should be understood to constitute the core area of the orientation and in what way can it be determined?

               3.

               Do the criminalisation of homosexual activities and the threat of imprisonment, which are discriminatory by nature, as set out in the Code Pénal of Senegal, constitute an act of persecution as referred to in Article 9(1)(a) [Or. 13], read in conjunction with Article 9(2)(c) of the Directive? If not, under what circumstances would that be the case?


22 . 4 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 101 /5
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht of            how is the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by
Land Brandenburg by order of that court of 21 February                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2587/91 , to be interpreted for the
1995 in the case of Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich                   purposes of the tariff classification of the Xerox 3010 and
      Biiker GmbH &c Co KG v. Hauptzollamt Cottbus                      Xerox 3010 Editor machines described in the body of the
                          ( Case C-64/95 )                              present reference ? ( J )
                            ( 95/C 101 /11 )
                                                                        f 1 ) The Xerox 3010 and Xerox 3010 Editor machines can transmit
                                                                              fax messages and copy at the same time , while the Xerox 3010
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Editor can also edit the images received ( enlargement or
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of                      reduction of the full image or part of it). Photocopying takes
the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court ) of Land Brandenburg of                    place by means of a scanner which scans the information in a
21 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                   document and stores it in the form of digital units in the
on 10 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    machine's memory, from where it can be retrieved for printing
Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich Biiker GmbFl & Co KG                        in legible form on paper.
v. Flauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Cottbus on the
following questions :
1 . has Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1932/93 of
      16 July 1993 as rectified by the corrigendum published
      in the Official Journal of the European Communities (' )
      come into being with legal effect ?                                       Removal from the register of Case C-181/94 (')
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /13 )
2 . If so, are the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1932/93 also applicable to imports of sour cherries            By order of 13 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
      effected up until 20 July 1993 ?                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-181/94 : Commission of the
3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative :                 European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
      (a ) were the preconditions present in 1993 for a
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
            measure for the organization of the market for sour
            cherries in 1993 ?
      ( b ) Is the minimum price system a permissible,
            appropriate measure for eliminating the
            disturbance to the market ?
      (c ) Is the minimum price system compatible with the                      Removal from the register of Case C-223/94 ( J )
            Interim Agreements of 25 February 1992 between
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/14 )
            the European Community and the Republic of
            Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and
            Slovak Federal Republic ?                                   By order of 20 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
t 1 ) OJ No L 176 , 20 . 7. 1993 , p. 29 .                              from the register of Case C-223/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v . Ireland .
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tariefcommissie
by decision of that court of 3 March 1995 in the case of
Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v. Inspecteur
              der Invoerrechten en Acciinzen, Venlo
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-265/94 ( l )
                            Case C-67/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 / 15
                            ( 95/C 101/12 )
                                                                        By order of 15 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities by a decision of the                           from the register of Case C-265/94 : Commission of the
Tariefcommissie (Administrative Court for Customs and                   European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Excise ) of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 13 March 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
case of Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v.
Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Inspector of
Customs and Excise ), Venlo, on the following question:


title: Case C-482/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH, formerly Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark application — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘bambino’ and ‘lük’ — Opposition proceedings — Earlier EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘bambino’ — Partial refusal of registration — Revocation of the earlier mark on which the opposition was based — Letter from the applicant informing the General Court of that revocation — Refusal of the General Court to add that letter to the case file — Failure to state reasons)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/22

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH, formerly Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-482/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark application - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘bambino’ and ‘lük’ - Opposition proceedings - Earlier EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘bambino’ - Partial refusal of registration - Revocation of the earlier mark on which the opposition was based - Letter from the applicant informing the General Court of that revocation - Refusal of the General Court to add that letter to the case file - Failure to state reasons))
   (2017/C 006/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH, formerly Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case C-404/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 August 2007 — Criminal proceedings against István Roland Sós

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 August 2007 — Criminal proceedings against István Roland Sós
   (Case C-404/07)
   (2007/C 283/23)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Fővárosi Bíróság
   Party to the main proceedings
   István Roland Sós
   Question referred
   Must Articles 2 and 3 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220 of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings be interpreted as meaning that the national court must also safeguard the possibility for the victim to be heard as a witness in criminal proceedings in which he has initiated a supplementary private prosecution?


title: Case T-431/11: Action brought on 4 August 2011 — Iberdrola v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/47

         Action brought on 4 August 2011 — Iberdrola v Commission
   (Case T-431/11)
   2011/C 282/87
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez-Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of the decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1(4) and (5) of the decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul Article 4 of the decision, or amend its scope as appropriate, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action has been brought against the Commission's Decision of 12 January 2011 in Case No C 45/2007 (ex NN 51/2007, ex CP 9/2007), on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions implemented by Spain.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-429/11 BBVA v Commission.


title: Case C-230/04: Action brought on 2 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/9

         Action brought on 2 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-230/04)
   (2004/C 201/18)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not allowing to be taken into account the experience and seniority, in another Member State's public sector, of Community nationals who join the French hospital public service, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement of workers within the Community (1);

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Member States are required to take into account, for the purposes of migrant workers' recruitment to, and grading and determination of seniority in their public services, employment periods in a comparable field of activity in another Member State, on the same conditions as apply to seniority and professional experience attained in the workers' own systems. The French provisions in force do not allow the experience and seniority, in another Member State's public sector, of Community nationals who join the French hospital public service to be taken into account.

      (1)  OJ L 257, of 19.10.1968, p. 2.


title: Case T-510/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Toqueville v OHIM — Schiesaro (TOCQUEVILLE 13) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark TOCQUEVILLE 13 — Failure to comply with the time-limit for appealing against a revocation decision — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Toqueville v OHIM — Schiesaro (TOCQUEVILLE 13)
   (Case T-510/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark TOCQUEVILLE 13 - Failure to comply with the time-limit for appealing against a revocation decision - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 234/60
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Toqueville Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. Bariatti, I Palombella and E. Cucchiara, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Marco Schiesaro (Limbiate, Italy) (represented by: A. Canella and D. Camaiora, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of 26 August 2008 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 829/2008-2) concerning the applicant’s application for restitutio in integrum

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Toqueville Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case C-16/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 15 January 2008 — SIA Schenker v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 15 January 2008 — SIA Schenker v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-16/08)
   (2008/C 92/22)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   Referring court
   Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA Schenker

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   Question referred
   Must heading 8528 21 90 of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that, as at 29 December 2004, it was also applicable to active matrix liquid crystal devices (TFT LCD — LTA320W2-L01, LTA260W1-L02, LTM170W1-L01) principally made up of the following elements:

               (1)

               two glass plates;

               (2)

               a layer of liquid crystal inserted between the two plates;

               (3)

               vertical and horizontal signal drivers;

               (4)

               backlight;

               (5)

               inverter providing high voltage power for backlight;

               (6)

               control block — data transmission interface (control PCB or PWB) to ensure sequential transmission of data to each pixel (dot) of the LCD unit using specific technology — LVDS (low voltage differential signalling)?


title: Case T-187/08: Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2010 — Rodd & Gunn Australia v OHIM (Representation of a dog) (Community trade mark — Figurative Community trade mark representing a dog — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — Request for renewal of the mark — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2010 — Rodd & Gunn Australia v OHIM (Representation of a dog)
   (Case T-187/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Figurative Community trade mark representing a dog - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - Request for renewal of the mark - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 148/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rodd & Gunn Australia Ltd (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and N. Jenkins, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2008 (Case R 1245/2007-4) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rodd & Gunn Australia Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case C-562/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Article 11 — Export refunds — Request for a refund in respect of exported goods which do not confer entitlement to a refund — Administrative penalty)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-562/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Article 11 - Export refunds - Request for a refund in respect of exported goods which do not confer entitlement to a refund - Administrative penalty)
   2013/C 26/25
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA)

      Respondent on a point of law: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12), in particular Article 11(1) thereof — Request for an export refund in a situation in which no refund is provided for — Whether a penalty may be imposed on the person making the request

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the exemptions laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 11(1), the reduction referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) must be applied, inter alia, in the case where it turns out that the goods for export in respect of which a refund was requested were not of sound and fair marketable quality, notwithstanding the fact that the exporter acted in good faith and correctly described the nature and origin of those goods.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.02.2012.


title: Case C-392/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) by judgment of that court of  30 June 2005  in proceedings between Georgios Alevizos and the Minister for Economic Affairs

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) by judgment of that court of 30 June 2005 in proceedings between Georgios Alevizos and the Minister for Economic Affairs
   (Case C-392/05)
   (2006/C 10/25)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Georgios Alevizos and Minister for Economic Affairs on the following question:
   Are civil servants and officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks of the armed forces, the public security forces and the harbour police corps covered, like other workers, by Article 6 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC and capable of acquiring ‘normal residence’ in another country where they live for at least 185 days in each calendar year in order to carry out an official task of a definite duration, or do they continue, even during the period of their assignment in the other country, to have their normal residence in Greece, irrespective of whether they have transferred their personal and occupational ties to the other country?


title: Case C-67/07: Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/19

         Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-67/07)
   (2007/C 95/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;
               in the alternative:
               declare that, by failing to communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2004/24/EC expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85.


title: Case C-325/01: Action brought on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.10.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 303/11
Action brought on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of                     1.   In circumstances where:
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                            (a)   a trader has exported a quantity of C sugar which
                                                                                exceeds the amount for which export was authorised
                        (Case C-325/01)                                           by the licence concerned; and/or
                        (2001/C 303/18)
                                                                            (b) a trader has exported C sugar after the expiry of the
                                                                                validity of the licence authorising the said export;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         and
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, Head of the                     (c)   even if, as a matter of fact, the relevant C sugar left
European Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.                          the Customs territory of the Community;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 has the proof required by the first indent of Article 2(2)
                                                                            of Regulation 2670/81 (1) been furnished in relation to
1.    Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 (1) of                  that export, or that element of the relevant export, which
      29 June 2001 providing for the continued application of               was not covered by a valid licence?
      safeguard measures with regard to imports of sugar
      sector products with EC/OCT originating status from the          2.   In the circumstances described in paragraph 1(a) above is
      overseas countries and territories for the period 1 July to           the answer to the above question different in circum-
      1 December 2001;                                                      stances where:
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
      ings.                                                                 (a)   the trader presented to the customs authority a
                                                                                customs declaration form (C88) amended in manu-
                                                                                script to reflect the amount actually exported; and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            (b) the customs authority has endorsed the relevant
                                                                                licence extract against the trader’s entry in the actual
The Netherlands refer to the application submitted in Case                        amount exported?
C-452/00 (2).
                                                                       3.   Is the answer to question 1 above different on the
(1) OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001, p. 57.                                           assumption that the circumstances were as follows:
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001, p. 12.
                                                                            (a)   the trader intended to apply for an extract for
                                                                                2 900 tonnes;
                                                                            (b) owing to an error on the part of the trader, a licence
                                                                                extract was issued for 2,9 tonnes and this 2,9 tonnes
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                              was recorded in the records of both the Intervention
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,                             Board and the trader;
Administrative Court, by order of that court of 20 July
2001, in the case of the Queen on the application of British
Sugar plc against Intervention Board for Agricultural                       (c)   the licence extract was attributed, with the authority
                             Produce                                              of the trader, by the trader’s agent, accurately to
                                                                                record the trader’s intention of exporting
                        (Case C-329/01)                                           2 900 tonnes;
                        (2001/C 303/19)                                     (d) that licence extract was subsequently endorsed by
                                                                                H.M. Customs & Excise to certify the export of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            2 900 tonnes of sugar;
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-                 (e)   the sugar was subject to a Form C88 export licence
trative Court, of 20 July 2001, which was received at the Court                   for 2 900 tonnes, which was subsequently attributed
Registry on 4 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the                     and endorsed by H.M. Customs & Excise;
case of the Queen on the application of British Sugar plc
against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, on the
following questions:                                                        (f)   2 900 tonnes of sugar were in fact exported;


title: Case T-64/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run2) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Run2 — Earlier Community word and figurative marks RUN2DAY — Earlier BENELUX figurative mark RUN2DATE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run2)
   (Case T-64/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Run2 - Earlier Community word and figurative marks RUN2DAY - Earlier BENELUX figurative mark RUN2DATE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 80/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Run2Day Franchise BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Koenraad, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Run2Day Franchise BV and Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH to pay, apart from their own costs, those incurred by Run2Day Franchise BV.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-71/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Administración del Estado v Xunta de Galicia (State aid — Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) — Scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion falling outside the scope of Directive 90/684/EEC — Failure to give prior notification — Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 87(1) EC) — Concept of State aid — Effect on trade between Member States)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 21 July 2005
   in Case C-71/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Administración del Estado v Xunta de Galicia (1)

   (State aid - Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) - Scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion falling outside the scope of Directive 90/684/EEC - Failure to give prior notification - Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 87(1) EC) - Concept of State aid - Effect on trade between Member States)
   (2005/C 217/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-71/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by decision of 22 December 2003, received at the Court on 16 February 2004, in the proceedings between Administración del Estado and Xunta de Galicia — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   The Commission of the European Communities must be given prior notification, pursuant to Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC), of a scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion such as that set up by Decree No 217/1994 of 23 June 1994, which does not fall within the scope of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding, if it is established that the scheme is capable of itself of giving rise to the grant of State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC). It is for the national court, in cases of infringement of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, to draw the necessary consequences, in accordance with its national law, with regard to both the validity of the acts giving effect to the aid and the recovery of financial support granted in disregard of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.


title: Case T-30/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — IDT Biologika v Commission (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply to Serbia of anti-rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — IDT Biologika v Commission
   (Case T-30/12) (1)

   ((Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply to Serbia of anti-rabies vaccines - Rejection of a tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2015/C 146/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: initially R. Gross and T. Kroupa, then R. Gross and A. Mekdam, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 5 October 2011 (OJ 2011/S 222-359832) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/130686/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Action brought on 12 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-33/98)

text:
C 94/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
München (Finance Court, Munich) of 22 January 1998,                  1 July 1995 and Germany has not yet taken the necesssary
which was received at the Court Registry on 9 February               measures.
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Luksch
v. Hauptzollamt Weiden on the following questions:                   (1) OJ L 135, 31.5.1994, p. 5.
1. Is Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1395/
    94 (1) of 17 June 1994 to be interpreted as meaning
    that a countervailing charge is to be levied on sour
    cherries which have deteriorated through the
    formation of mould and incipient fermentation to such
    an extent that the only economic use to which they               Action brought on 12 February 1998 by the Commission
    can be put is distillation?                                           of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:                                           (Case C-33/98)
2. Is Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 2658/87 (2), in the                                       (98/C 94/30)
    version in Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 (3) of
    10 August 1993, in particular Note 1 to Chapter 8 of
    the Combined Nomenclature, to be interpreted as                  An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
    meaning that the goods described in Question 1 are to            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    be classified under subheading 0809 20 20 or                     Communities on 12 February 1998 by the Commission of
    0809 20 60?                                                      the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia
                                                                     and Dr Frank Paul, of its Legal Service, with an address
(1) OJ L 152, 18.6.1994, p. 31.                                      for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
(2) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                        de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(3) OJ L 241, 27.9.1993, p. 1.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Ð declare that, by the statement of the Deutsche Bundes-
                                                                         bank (1) that (a) only leading banks' established in
Action brought on 11 February 1998 by the Commission                     Germany may act as leading bank for foreign German
     of the European Communities against the Federal                     mark issues in Germany and (b) foreign German mark
                      Republic of Germany                                issues by credit institutions not established in Germany
                         (Case C-32/98)                                  must have a maturity of at least two years, the Federal
                                                                         Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                          (98/C 94/29)
                                                                         under Council Directive 88/361/EEC (2) and, from
                                                                         1 January 1994, under Article 73b of the EC Treaty
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    and under Article 59 of the EC Treaty and Council
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      Directive 89/646/EEC (3),
Communities on 11 February 1998 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Christina
Tufvesson and Dr Frank Paul, of its Legal Service, with an           Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                costs.
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     In the Commission's view, it is not decisive whether the
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            statement is legally binding, since participants in the
    period the measures necessary to comply with                     market must in view of the Bundesbank's authority be
    Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of             concerned to comply with statements even if formally they
    the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee                  are not legally binding. Specifically,
    schemes (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has
    failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty,
                                                                     Ð the second sentence of point 1(1) of the statement
                                                                         infringes the principle of freedom to provide services
Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                         (Article 59 of the EC Treaty), Article 18(1) of Council
    costs.
                                                                         Directive 89/646/EEC in conjunction with point 8 of
                                                                         the Annex thereto, and the principle of the free
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      movement of capital (Article 73b of the EC Treaty), in
                                                                         so far at its effect is to exclude foreign credit
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those                  institutions from lead management for foreign German
in Case C-18/98; the period for transposition expired on                 mark bonds unless they act through a German branch,
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 94/15
Ð point 2 of the statement infringes Article 73b of the                      fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 and 52 of the
     EC Treaty and Council Directive 88/361/EEC, in that                     EC Treaty and Article 13 of the said Regulation,
     it requires a maturity of at least two years for
     securities issues by foreign credit institutions on the            Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     German market, and is thus a hindrance to such issues
     compared with issues by German credit institutions.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Contrary to the view of the German Government, in
                                                                        The social debt repayment contribution (CRDS) was
accordance with the scheme of Article 73b et seq. and the
                                                                        introduced by Regulation No 96-50 of 24 January 1996
wording of the first indent of Article 109e(2)(a),
                                                                        and the proceeds of the contribution are allocated to the
restrictions of the free movement of capital may not be
                                                                        Caisse d'Amortissement de la Dette Sociale (Social Debt
justified on the ground of requirements of Member States'
                                                                        Redemption Fund) established by that Regulation. All
monetary policy. However, the restrictions contained in
                                                                        natural persons regarded as resident in France under
the statement are in any event disproportionate, since Ð
                                                                        French tax law are liable to pay the CRDS in particular
as shown by the example of numerous other Member
                                                                        on their employment income or substitute income.
States Ð money supply can be controlled without
                                                                        Taxable persons resident in France who draw their
adopting measures which restrict the free movement of
                                                                        employment income or substitute income from another
capital.
                                                                        Member State are thus subject to the CRDS.
Contrary to the view of the German Government, a rule
                                                                        Since the CRDS is intended to contribute to the financing
which imposes on domestic banks only a minimum reserve
                                                                        of all sectors of the general social security scheme in
obligation for bonds issued exclusively in Germany affects
                                                                        France, it is a social security contribution within the scope
internal factual situations only; there is thus no
                                                                        of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
discrimination relevant from the point of view of
Community law.
                                                                        The levying of the CRDS on the employment income and
(1) Statement of the Deutsche Bundesbank on German mark                 substitute income of persons who reside in France but
    issues of 3 July 1992.                                              work in another Member State, such as frontier-zone
(2) Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the                workers, calls into question the single legislation rule,
    implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ L 178,               inasmuch as the CRDS intended for the financing of social
    8.7.1988, p. 5).                                                    security schemes is levied on income which has already
(3) Second Council Directive of 15 December 1989 on the                 been subjected to all the social contributions of the State
    coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                of employment, which is the only State competent in
    provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business
                                                                        social security matters in accordance with Article 13 of
    of credit institutions and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (OJ
    L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1).                                           Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
                                                                        Levying the CRDS on such income on which social
                                                                        contributions have already been levied in the State of
                                                                        employment is incompatible with the said Regulation and
                                                                        constitutes a barrier to the exercise of the fundamental
Action brought on 12 February 1998 by the Commission                    freedoms guaranteed under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 Treaty.
                           (Case C-34/98)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                            (98/C 94/31)                                    application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
                                                                            self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                            moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
An action against the French Republic was brought before                    1971, p. 416).
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Peter Hillenkamp, Legal
Adviser, and HeÂleÁne Michard, of its Legal Service, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                           Removal from the register of Case C-72/97 (1)
Kirchberg.
                                                                                (98/C 94/32)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 18 November 1997, the President of the
Ð declare that, by applying the social debt repayment                   Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
     contribution (CRDS) to the employment income and                   removal from the register of Case C-72/97: Commission of
     substitute income of employed and self-employed                    the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain.
     persons resident in France but working in another
     Member State, who by virtue of Regulation (EEC)                    (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
     No 1408/71 (1) are not subject to French social
     security legislation, the French Republic has failed to


title: Case T-435/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2007 — Simões Dos Santos v OHIM (Staff case — OHIM officials and temporary staff — Reports and promotion — Merit points reset at zero and their total recalculated — Transitional arrangements — Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Non-retroactivity — Principles of legality and legal certainty — Legal basis — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2007 — Simões Dos Santos v OHIM
   (Case T-435/04) (1)

   (Staff case - OHIM officials and temporary staff - Reports and promotion - Merit points reset at zero and their total recalculated - Transitional arrangements - Action for annulment - Plea of illegality - Non-retroactivity - Principles of legality and legal certainty - Legal basis - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment)
   (2007/C 82/76)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Manuel Simões Dos Santos (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, first, of OHIM's decision of 7 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 11 March 2004 and, secondly, of OHIM's decision of 15 December 2003 establishing the cumulative total of the applicant's merit points under the 2003 promotion procedure and of the Joint Evaluation Board's opinion of 12 December 2003.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               annuls OHIM's decision of 15 December 2003 definitively allocating merit points under the 2003 promotion procedure to the applicant and OHIM's decision of 7 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 11 March 2004 in so far as they entail a finding that the balance of the applicant's merit points has disappeared, as acknowledged by decision PERS-PROM-39-03rev1 on promotion, of 30 March 2004;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93: Métropole Télévision SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Decisions of associations of undertakings - Agreements between undertakings - Exemption decision)

text:
 No C 247/ 12          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 24 . 8 . 96
  1 . the application is rejected;                                    Hemau , represented by Hartwig Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, 8
                                                                      Pacellistraße, Munich, against Commission of the European
 2 . each of the parties will bear its own costs.                     Communities ( Agents : Ulrich Wölker and Claudia Schmidt )
                                                                      — application for the annulment of Commission Regulation
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                    ( EEC ) No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of
                                                                      the final regional reference amounts for producers of soya
                                                                      beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the
                                                                       1992/93 marketing year ( OJ No L 56 , 1993 , p. 18 ) — the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
                         of 6 June 1996                               H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy,
 in Case T-391/94 : Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the                  A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki , Judges; H. Jung,
                   European Communities ( 1 )                         Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 July 1996 , in which it :
 (Officials — Act adversely affecting an official —                   I. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
  Time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility
                    — Action for damages).                            2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                           ( 96/C 247/24 )                                 costs .
                (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .
 In Case T-391 /94 : Jean Baiwir, an official of the
 Commission of the European Communities , residing at
 Court-Saint-Etienne ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
 Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Sari , 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European                                         of 11 July 1996
 Communities ( Agents : first, Joseph Griesmar, then Julian
 Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for           in Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93' and
 annulment of the memorandum of 12 February 1993 from                T-546/93 : Métropole Télévision SA and Others v.
the Head of Unit IX . A. 6 of the Commission, purporting to                  Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
classify the applicant as 'cross-category' for the purposes of        (Competition — Decisions of associations of undertakings
the 1 993 promotions within the career bracket, and also for         — Agreements between undertakings — Exemption
an order that the applicant be reinstated in his career as an                                      decision)
official in Grade B 4/2 with retroactive effect from 1 January                                 ( 96/C 247/26 )
 1993 , and compensation for the non-material damage
suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D.                    (Languages of the case: Spanish, French and Italian)
Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June 1996 , the operative            In Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93 and
part of which is as follows :                                        T-546/93 : Métropole Television SA, established in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Pierre Deprez, Philippe Dian and , at the
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                   hearing, by Didier Théophile, all of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
2 . each of the parties will bear its own costs.                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue , Reti Televisive Italiana SpA,
                                                                     established in Rome, represented by Carlo Mezzanotte and
(') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                     Giovanni Motzo, of the Rome Bar, and Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                     of the Trapani Bar, and, at the hearing, by Massimo Merola ,
                                                                     of the Trapani Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                     Albert Ier , supported by Sociedade Independente de
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Comunicação SA ( SIC ), established at Linda-a-Velha
                        of 10 July 1996                              ( Portugal ), represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the
       in Case T-482/93 : Martin Weber and Others v.                 Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                 the Chambers of Carole Kerschen , 31 Grand-Rue,
                                                                     Gestevisión Telecinco SA, established in Madrid ,
(Common agriculturalpolicy — Support system for oilseeds             represented by Santiago Munoz Machado, of the Madrid
— Regulations (EEC) Nos 3766/91 and 525/93 — Actions                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        for annulment of measures — Inadmissibility)                 Chambers of Carlos Amo Quinones, 2 Rue Gabriel
                          ( 96/ C 247/25 )                           Lippmann , and Antena 3 de Television , established in
                                                                     Madrid , represented by Fernando Pombo Garcia , Ricardo
               (Language of the case: German)                        Garcia Vicente , Emiliano Garayar Gutierrez and Maria
                                                                     Luisa Tierno Centella , of the Madrid Bar, with an address
In Case T-482/93 : Martin Weber and Maria Weber, residing            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude
at Hemau ( Germany ), Martin Weber GdbR , established at             Wassenich , 6 Rue Dicks, against Commission of the
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 8 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/ 13
European Communities, represented in Case T-528/93 ,                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
initially by Berend Jan Drijber, of its Legal Service , and                                          of 11 July 1996
Géraud de Bergues, subsequently by Mr Drijber alone, in
Case T-542/93 , by Berend Jan Drijber, assisted by Alberto                      in Case T-587/93 : Elena Ortega Urretavizcaya v.
Dal Ferro, in Cases T-543/93 and T-546/93 , by Berend Jan                          Commission of the European Communities ( )
Drijber and Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz, and , at the                 (Officials — Member of the temporary staff — Offer —
hearing, by Guy Charrier, supported in Case T-528/93                      Temporary staff contract — Alteration ofgrade and duties
by European Broadcasting Union , based in Geneva                                             — Legitimate expectations)
( Switzerland ), represented by Hanns Ullrich , a university                                          ( 96/C 247/27 )
professor in Munich , with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean Welter, 100
Boulevard de la Pétrusse, in Case T-542/93 by                                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
Radiotelevisione Italiana SpA ( RAI ), established in Rome,
represented by Patrizia Ferrara Ginsburg, of the
Luxembourg Bar, Alessandro Pace and Gian Luigi Tosato,                   In Case T-587/93 : Elena Ortega Urretavizcaya , a member of
of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg               the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
at the Chambers of Patrizia Ferrara Ginsburg, 31 Avenue                  Communities , residing in Brussels, represented by Antonio
Guillaume, and in Cases T-543/93 and T-546/93 by                         Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of
Radiotelevisión Española ( RTVE ), established in Madrid,                the Salamanca Bar, at the Chambers of Messrs Cuatrecasas,
represented initially by Alfredo Sanchez-Bella Carswell ,                78 Avenue d'Auderghem , Brussels , v. the Commission of the
Rafael Aldama Caso and Jose Rivas Andres, of the Madrid                  European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira
Bar, subsequently by Rafael Aldama Caso and Jose Rivas                   and Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) — application for,
Andres, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 first, the annulment of the decision as to grading contained
Chambers of Jean Welter, 100 Boulevard de la Pétrusse —                  in Articles 2 and 3 of applicant's temporary staff contract
application for annulment of Commission Decision                         and, second , for compensation , — the Court of First
93/403/EEC of 11 June 1993 relating to a proceeding                      Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ,
pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/32.150 —                   President, R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges ; B.
EBU/Eurovision System, OJ No I. 179, 1993 , p. 23 ) — the                Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Court of First Instance of the European Communities ( First              a judgment on 11 July 1996 in which it :
Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and
                                                                         1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it
R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; Registrar, J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                               requests the Court to order the defendant to adopt a new
Administrator, has given a judgment in which it:                               decision ;
1 . annuls Commission Decision 93/403/EEC of 1 1 June
     1993 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of             2 . annuls the defendant 's decision as to grading, as
     the EEC Treaty (IV/32A 50 — EBU/Eurovision                                provided for in the contract of employment;
     System);
                                                                         3 . sets the amount to be paid to the applicant by way of
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                     compensation as the difference between, on the one
     the costs incurred by the applicants and those incurred                   hand, the net salary which she would have received ifshe
     by the intervener Sociedade Independente de                               had been placed as from 1 March 1 993 in grade 3 , with
     Comunicação SA ;                                                          the step fixed in accordance with the grade in
                                                                               administration decision , multiplied by the number of
                                                                               months between the date on which the contested
3 . orders Reti Televisive Italiane SpA to bear the costs                      decision was adopted and the date of delivery of this
     incurred by it in connection with the intervention of                     judgment, taking into account the automatic advances
     Radiotelevisione Italiana SpA ; orders Gestevisión                        in step for which she would have qualified and, on the
     Telecinco SA and Antena 3 de Television to bear the
                                                                               other hand, the salary which she actually received;
     costs respectively incurred by them in connection with
     the interventions of Radiotelevisión Española;
                                                                         4 . adds to the amount referred to at point (3) above interest
4 . orders the intervener European Broadcasting Union to                       at 8 % as from 23 December 1 993 until payment;
     bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the
     applicant Métropole Television SA in connection with                5 . dismisses the claim for compensation for non-material
     its intervention; orders the interveners Radiotelevisione                 damage;
     Italiana SpA and Radiotelevisión Española to bear their
     own costs .
                                                                         6 . orders the defendant to pay all the costs.
(>) OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1 993 ; OJ No C 328 , 4 . 12 . 1993 ; and OJ
    No C 325 , 2 . 12 . 1993 .                                           f 1 ) O I No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .