title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Versailles (12th Chamber) by judgment of that court of 5 November 1998 in the case of Société Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA against Compagnie d'Assurances Universal General Insurance Company 'UGIC' (Case C-412/98) (1999/C 1/21)

text:
4.1.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 1/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  established in a Member State rely on the specific rules on
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                       jurisdiction set out in that Convention against a plaintiff
Chancery Division, by order of that court of 2 October                   domiciled in Canada?
1998, in the case of 1. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
and 2. Hoechst UK Ltd against 1. Inland Revenue                          Do the rules on jurisdiction specific to matters relating to
         Commissioners and 2. HM Attorney General                        insurance set out in Article 7 et seq. of the Brussels
                                                                         Convention apply to matters relating to reinsurance?
                         (Case C-410/98)
                           (1999/C 1/20)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    Appeal brought on 23 November 1998 by the
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                       Commission of the European Communities against the
Chancery Division, of 2 October 1998, which was                          judgment delivered on 17 September 1998 by the First
received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Hoechst                           Communities in Case T-50/96 between Primex Produkte
Aktiengesellschaft and 2. Hoechst UK Ltd against 1.                      Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH and
Inland Revenue Commissioners and 2. HM Attorney                          Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, supported by the United
General, on questions which are identical to those in Case               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the
C-397/98 (1), Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Others against                           Commission of the European Communities
Commissioners of Inland Revenue and HM Attorney
                                                                                (Case C-417/98 P)
General.
                                                                                (1999/C 1/22)
(1) Published in this Official Journal at page 7.
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 September
                                                                         1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in Case T-50/96 between
                                                                         Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr.
                                                                         Kruse GmbH and Interporc Im- und Export GmbH,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel                   supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
de Versailles (12th Chamber) by judgment of that court                   Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the European
of 5 November 1998 in the case of SocieÂteÂ Group                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Josi Reinsurance Company SA against Compagnie                            the European Communities on 23 November 1998 by the
d'Assurances Universal General Insurance Company                         Commission of the European Communities, represented
                               UGIC'                                    by Jean-Louis Dewost, Director-General of the
                                                                         Commission's Legal Service, and Götz zur Hausen, Legal
                         (Case C-412/98)
                                                                         Adviser, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                           (1999/C 1/21)                                 Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                         its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
(Court of Appeal), Versailles (12th Chamber) of                          Ð Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
5 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on                            of 17 September 1998 in Case T-50/96.
19 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
SocieÂteÂ Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA against                      Ð Dismiss the action in that case.
Compagnie d'Assurances Universal General Insurance
Company UGIC' on the following questions:                               Ð Order the respondents to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Does the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on
jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
commercial matters apply not only to intra-Community'                   Case C-163/98 P (1).
disputes but also to disputes which are integrated into the
Community'? More particularly, can a defendant                           (1) OJ C 258, 15.8.1998, p. 14.


title: Case C-337/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — European Commission implementing decision — Notification to the addressee — Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex — Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/17

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-337/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 239/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: Case C-25/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 January 2013 — France Telecom España, S.A. v Diputación de Barcelona

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 January 2013 — France Telecom España, S.A. v Diputación de Barcelona
   (Case C-25/13)
   2013/C 108/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17, Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: France Telecom España, S.A.

      Defendant: Diputación de Barcelona

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the restriction of the applicability of the fees referred to in Article 13 of the Authorisation Directive (1) to the proprietors of telecommunications networks alone, as held in the judgment of 12 July 2012, (2) be extended to cover any other remuneration or consideration that the owners of public or private property may receive as consideration for the installation on their land or property of facilities associated with telecommunications networks?

               2.

               Is such remuneration, and the question of who is liable to pay it, to be determined by the domestic law of the Member State?

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

      (2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) in Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11, not yet published in the ECR.


title: Case T-88/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Charron Inox and Almet v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/32

         Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Charron Inox and Almet v Council
   (Case T-88/12)
   2012/C 109/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Charron Inox (Marseille, France) and Almet (Satolas-et-Bonce, France) (represented by: P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               principally, annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 as being based on inadequate economic findings;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 which collects definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty already collected, in so far as that collection is inconsistent with the principle of legitimate expectations;

               —

               in the further alternative, acknowledge the European Union’s non-contractual liability that validates the direct application of a collection which, in view of the subject-matter, ought to have been announced to the economic operators concerned within reasonable periods of time sufficient to enable them to anticipate their economic options with sufficient legal certainty;

               —

               in each case, order the repayment to and/or indemnification of the applicant companies in the following amounts:

                           —

                           damage caused to the company CHARRON INOX as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 89 402,15;

                           —

                           damage suffered by the company ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 375 493;

                           —

                           damage suffered jointly by the companies CHARRON INOX and ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 58 594, that sum to be divided between them by CHARRON INOX and ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE themselves;

                           —

                           damage to the company CHARRON INOX as a result of its being required to obtain supplies from Indian suppliers on less favourable terms: EUR 57 883,18;

                           —

                           damage to the company ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of its being required to obtain supplies from Indian suppliers on less favourable terms: EUR 66 578,14.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments on which the applicants rely in support of their action against the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-445/11 Charron Inox and Almet v Commission, (2) concerning the regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on those imports. (3)

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 336, p. 6).

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 18.

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 169, p. 1).


title: Case T-608/13: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — Tui (easyAir-tours) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark easyAir-tours — Earlier national figurative mark airtours Ticket Factory — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Power to alter decisions — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — Tui (easyAir-tours)
   (Case T-608/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark easyAir-tours - Earlier national figurative mark airtours Ticket Factory - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Power to alter decisions - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 213/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Day and K. Osgerby, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tui AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tui AG and easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd.

      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 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012-1);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd;

               4.

               Orders Tui AG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-614/11: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — GDC Engineering v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/35

         Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — GDC Engineering v Commission
   (Case T-614/11) (1)

   (2016/C 222/43)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case C-376/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/23

         Action brought on 2 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-376/13)
   2013/C 252/39
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, G. Koleva, L. Malferrari)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by restricting, under Paragraph 5a(1) and (2) of the transitional and concluding provisions of the ZES (Law on electronic communication) to two in number (whereas potentially up to five undertakings could be considered in that regard) the undertakings to which radio frequencies could be assigned for digital terrestrial broadcasting and which can be authorised to provide the corresponding electronic communication service, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2(1) of the Competition Directive;

               —

               Declare that by prohibiting, under Paragraph 47a(1) and (2) and 48(3) of the ZES, undertakings which offer television content and the programmes of which are not broadcast in the Republic of Bulgaria, and persons connected with those undertakings, from taking part in tenders for the assignment of radio frequencies for digital terrestrial broadcasting and the corresponding [services], the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2(2) and 4(2) of the Competition Directive, Article 7(3) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive;

               —

               Declare that by prohibiting, under Paragraph 48(5) of the ZES, holders of radio frequencies for digital terrestrial broadcasting from establishing electronic communication services for the broadcasting of radio and television programmes, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2(2) and 4(2) of the Competition Directive, Article 7(3) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive;

               —

               Order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Commission claims that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2(1) and (2) and 4(2) of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (‘the Competition Directive’), Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘the Authorisation Directive’) and Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (‘the Framework Directive’).

               —

               The Republic of Bulgaria has failed to comply with the requirement of Article 2(1) of the Competition Directive, according to which Member States are not to grant or maintain in force exclusive or special rights for the establishment and/or the provision of electronic communications networks, or for the provision of publicly available electronic communications services. By legislation the Republic of Bulgaria restricted to two in number the undertakings authorised to use radio frequencies for digital terrestrial broadcasting and which provide services as multiplex providers in its territory (whereas potentially up to five undertakings could be considered in that regard). Disproportionate criteria which lacked objectivity were employed in that regard. By that means Bulgaria established special rights for the provision of those electronic communication services.

               —

               The Republic of Bulgaria has failed to comply with the requirements of Article 2(2) of the Competition Directive, Article 7(3) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive, according to which the assignment of radio frequencies for electronic communication services shall be based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria. The Republic of Bulgaria applied criteria for the participation in tenders for the assignment of radio frequencies for digital terrestrial broadcasting which were not proportionate to the purposes pursued; by establishing criteria for the assignment of radio frequencies for digital terrestrial broadcasting which were disproportionate and thus by precluding a number of undertakings from taking part in those tenders, the Republic of Bulgaria failed to comply with its obligation under Article 2(2) of the Competition Directive to ensure that any undertaking is entitled to provide electronic communications services.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

      (3)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.


title: Case C-587/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Establishing a company in certain third countries — Soft loans — Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings — Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Italian Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-587/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Establishing a company in certain third countries - Soft loans - Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court)
   2014/C 9/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 on the State aid implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29) — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of audi alteram partem — Res judicata — Principle of proportionality — De minimis Regulation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-289/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/7

         Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)
   (Case T-289/09)
   2009/C 244/11
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (Heidelberg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 401/2008-4; and

               —

               Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’, for services in class 42

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that: (a) the trade marks concerned were similar; (b) that there was genuine use of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings; (c) that the services for which genuine use had been shown were similar; and (d) that, as a consequence, there existed a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-380/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gustav Schneider v Bundesminister für Justiz (Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women — Promotion — Principle of effective control by the courts — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 85/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              3.4.2004
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 12 February 2004
                                                                                of 5 February 2004
in Case C-337/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hamann International GmbH
  Spedition + Logistik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (1)                      in Case C-380/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gustav Schneider v
                                                                                Bundesminister für Justiz (1)
(Community Customs Code — Customs debt on import —
         Removal of goods from customs supervision)
                                                                             (Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and
                           (2004/C 85/07)                                    women — Promotion — Principle of effective control by the
                                                                                courts — Inadmissibility)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/08)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-337/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the proceedings pending before that court between Hamann                                      in the European Court Reports)
International GmbH Spedition + Logistik and Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Stadt, on the interpretation of Article 203(1) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
acting for the President of the Second Chamber, R. Schintgen                 In Case C-380/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                   EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
trar, has given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in which it                  Gustav Schneider and Bundesminister für Justiz, on the
has ruled:                                                                   interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
                                                                             1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treat-
                                                                             ment for men and women as regards access to employment,
Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                     vocational training and promotion, and working conditions
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to                (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
be interpreted as meaning that there is removal from customs                 of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
supervision for the purposes of that provision when, before the entry        C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May                S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down                        trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February
provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, non-             2004, in which it has ruled:
Community goods which were subject to the customs warehousing
procedure and intended for re-export from the customs territory of the
Community have been removed and transported from the customs
warehouse to the customs office at the point of exit without having          The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Verwaltungs-
been placed under the external transit procedure and the customs             gerichtshof by order of 13 September 2001 is inadmissible.
authorities have been unable, if only for a short time, to ensure
customs supervision of those goods.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
(1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.


title: Joined Cases T-678/15 and T-679/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO (Representation of a grey curve and representation of a green curve) (EU trade mark — Applications for EU figurative trade marks representing a grey curve and representing a green curve — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Simplicity of the sign — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO (Representation of a grey curve and representation of a green curve)
   (Joined Cases T-678/15 and T-679/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Applications for EU figurative trade marks representing a grey curve and representing a green curve - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Simplicity of the sign - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 038/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Zintler, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz and S. Hanne, Agents)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2015 (Cases R 78/2015-5 and R 89/2015-5), concerning applications for registration of two figurative signs, representing a grey curve and representing a green curve, as EU trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 September 2015 (Cases R 78/2015-5 and R 89/2015-5);

               2.

               Allows the appeals brought by Novartis AG before that Board of Appeal;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case T-377/06: Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Comap v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/28

         Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Comap v Commission
   (Case T-377/06)
   (2007/C 42/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Comap SA (Lyons, France) (represented by A. Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints, together with the grounds on which the operative part of the decision was reached, in so far as that decision censures Comap for periods other than that between December 1997 and March 2001, in relation to which Comap does not challenge the facts set out by the Commission;

               —

               amend Articles 1 and 2 and the grounds on which they were reached, by reducing the amount of the fine of EUR 18.56 million imposed on Comap;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints), concerning a series of agreements and concerted practices on the market for copper joints and copper alloys having as their object price fixing, the drawing up of price lists and lists of rebates and discounts, the putting in place of coordination arrangements for price increases, the sharing of national markets and customers, together with the exchange of other business information, in so far as that decision censures Comap for periods other than that between December 1997 and March 2001, in relation to which Comap does not challenge the facts set out by the Commission. In the alternative, it seeks a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes the following pleas in law.
   First, it argues that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and committed errors of law, errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment in finding that the alleged cartel continued after on-the-spot investigations by the Commission in March 2001, until April 2004.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), in that it did not acknowledge that, since no evidence of anti-competitive practices could be produced, the alleged infringement was interrupted for a period of 27 months, between September 1992 and December 1994, with the result, according to the applicant, that facts occurring prior to December 1994 were subject to limitation when the Commission's investigation opened in January 2001.
   In the alternative, the applicant puts forward a plea based on infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, together with the Guidlines on the method of setting fines (2) and the Leniency Notice (3), in that the Commission failed to comply with the rules on the method of setting fines. It argues that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment in that the starting amount for the purposes of calculating the fine imposed on Comap was, according to it, unduly high in comparison with the starting amounts chosen in respect of the other undertakings censured by the contested decision, notwithstanding that their competitive position was comparable to the position held on the market by the applicant.

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

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 (5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

      (3)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case C-539/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 27 November 2014  — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
   (Case C-539/14)
   (2015/C 026/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García

      Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

      Question referred

   Must Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1), in conjunction with Articles 47, 34(3) and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2), be interpreted as precluding a procedural provision of the kind laid down in Article 695(4) of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals against a decision determining the outcome of an objection to enforcement proceedings in relation to mortgaged or pledged goods, which allows an appeal to be brought only against an order staying the proceedings, disapplying an unfair term or dismissing an opposition based on an unfair term, the immediate consequence of which is that more legal remedies on appeal are available to the seller or supplier seeking enforcement than to the consumer against whom enforcement is sought?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

      OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.


title: Case T-642/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/30

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament
   (Case T-642/11 P)
   2012/C 49/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische, and M. Velardo, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament and, to the extent possible based on the facts before the Court deliver judgment, and:

               —

               Annul the Parliament’s decision of 4 October 2004 in so far as it determines the appellant’s grading;

               —

               Order the Parliament to make good any damage caused (including damages to his career, legal and regular pay, immaterial damages, with default interest etc.);

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the cost of these proceedings and those before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in declaring the action inadmissible for having been lodged out of time.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in ruling that the action is inadmissible because it would not have been liable to procure any advantage to the appellant, and thus he did not have an interest in bringing the action.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to rule on the pleas raised on the merits of the application, in particular the infringement of Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1)


title: Case T-180/11: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (CHIVAS LIVE WITH CHIVALRY) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/21

         Order of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (CHIVAS LIVE WITH CHIVALRY)
   (Case T-180/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 399/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd (Paisley, Renfrewshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Carboni, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Lumsdaine, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R 1262/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd and Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are each ordered to bear their own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-56/05: Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/12

         Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-56/05)
   (2005/C 93/22)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris Triandafillou, Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/48/EC (1) of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive.

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 January 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 157 of 26.06.2003, p. 38.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2000 in Case C-147/96: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Commission's refusal to include an overseas country in the provisional list of third countries established by Article 23 of Directive 92/46/EEC — Actionable measure)

text:
21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 302/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;
                                                                             3.    Orders the French Republic and the Council of the European
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                Union to bear their own costs.
                          of 22 June 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
in Case C-147/96: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Commission’s refusal to include
an overseas country in the provisional list of third countries
established by Article 23 of Directive 92/46/EEC — Action-                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            able measure)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          (2000/C 302/01)
                                                                                of 22 June 2000
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            in Case C-65/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Safet Eyüp v Landesge-
                                                                                schäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Free movement of
                                                                             workers — Article 7, first paragraph, of Decision No 1/80
In Case C-147/96, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:                        of the Association Council — Member of a Turkish worker’s
M.A. Fierstra and J.S. van den Oosterkamp) v Commission of                   family — Meaning of legal residence — Periods in which the
the European Communities (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and T. van                    person authorised to join the worker cohabited with him —
Rijn), supported by French Republic (Agents: C. de Salins and                Right to work as an employed person — Application for
G. Mignot) and by Council of the European Union (Agents:                                              interim measures)
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin) — application for annul-
ment of the Commission’s decision communicated in its letter                                           (2000/C 302/02)
of 26 February 1996 to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands
Antilles refusing to include that country in the provisional list
of third countries drawn up in accordance with Article 23(3)                                    (Language of the case: German)
(a) of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
down the health rules for the production and placing on the
market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(OJ 1992 L 268, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                                     in the European Court Reports)
of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón (Rap-
porteur), P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                  In Case C-65/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsger-
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June                ichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
2000, in which it:                                                           pending before that court between Safet Eyüp and Landesge-
                                                                             schäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice VorarIberg — on the
1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                             interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision


title: Case C-292/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 July 2008 — German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v A. van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 July 2008 — German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v A. van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV
   (Case C-292/08)
   (2008/C 272/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH

      Respondent: A. van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 25(2) of the Insolvency Regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘provided that that Convention [that is to say, the Brussels I Regulation (2)] is applicable’ featuring in that provision imply that, before it can be concluded that the recognition and enforcement provisions of the Brussels I Regulation are applicable to judgments other than those referred to in Article 25(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, it is first necessary to examine whether, pursuant to Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation, such judgments fall outside the material scope of that regulation?

               2.

               Must Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation, in conjunction with Article 7(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, be interpreted as meaning that it follows from the fact that an asset to which a reservation of title applies is situated, at the time of the opening of insolvency proceedings against the purchaser, in the Member State in which those insolvency proceedings are opened, that a claim of the seller based on that reservation of title, such as that of German Graphics, must be regarded as a claim which relates to bankruptcy or the winding-up of an insolvent company, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation, and which therefore falls outside the material scope of that regulation?

               3.

               Is it relevant in the context of Question 2 that, pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of the Insolvency Regulation, the law of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings are opened is to determine the assets which form part of the estate?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

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


title: Case C-175/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Action against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling — No case pending before the court hearing that action — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/6

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee

   (Case C-175/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Action against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling - No case pending before the court hearing that action - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 146/07)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ

      Defendant: Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee

      Third party: Eesti Vabariigi Siseministeerium

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Riigikohus (Estonia), by decision of 21 March 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case F-87/15: Action brought on 15 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/43

         Action brought on 15 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-87/15)
   (2015/C 262/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to extend recognition that the applicant’s daughter suffers from a serious illness and compensation for the material and non-material damaged allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 25 August 2014 of the Brussels Settlements Office, refusing to extend recognition that the applicant’s daughter suffers from a serious illness;

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 5 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 November 2014;

               —

               order compensation for the material damage and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-252/02: Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton Marine and Palace Pier Company against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 261/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26.10.2002
Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton                         claims that the Decision would erred in taking into account
Marine and Palace Pier Company against the Commission                    only the effect on competition that could arise from the
                of the European Communities                              operation of the heritage centre on the West Pier. Instead, the
                                                                         Decision should also take into account the effect on compe-
                                                                         tition and trade that could arise from the management and use
                        (Case T-252/02)                                  of the new shore end commercial buildings and the commercial
                                                                         space on the West Pier. According to the applicant, these new
                                                                         commercial developments would not take place without the
                        (2002/C 261/34)                                  funded restoration of the West Pier.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in
                                                                         concluding that if there was aid, it was compatible with the
                                                                         common market under Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                According to the applicant, the Commission failed to weigh
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               up the benefits of any cultural or heritage objective against the
European Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton                   much larger purely commercial aspects. Furthermore, it failed
Marine and Palace Pier Company, Jarrow, Tyne and Wear                    to take into account the potential disadvantages for the
(United Kingdom), represented by C. Vajda QC and T. Usher,               applicant, Palace Pier, which is also an English Heritage listed
Solicitor.                                                               building, and relies solely on its commercial viability.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of 9 April 2002 both in respect of the
      conclusions under Article 87(1) and Article 87(3)(d) of
      the EC Treaty;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 23 August 2002 by L against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case T-254/02)
The applicant operates the Brighton Palace Pier. In the                                          (2002/C 261/35)
contested Decision, the Commission held that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier did not involve state aid and
declared, in the alternative, any aid to be compatible with the                            (Language of the case: French)
common market. The applicant points out that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier involves the participation of a private
partner, St. Modwen. This partner will, after the restoration,
exploit the pier and adjacent lands commercially. This would
create a direct competitor for the applicant since the West Pier,
which is situated only 1,2 kilometres away from the Palace               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pier, would then offer the same services and attractions as the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant currently offers.                                              European Communities on 23 August 2002 by L, residing in
                                                                         Brussels, represented by Jean Van Rossum, lawyers.
The applicant submits that the Commission erred in conclud-
ing that the measures did not favour St. Modwen. According               The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the applicant, the funding of the restoration gives St.
Modwen the opportunity to carry out a large commercial
development of a scale and in a locality which would not                 —     annul the decision of the Commission of 30 April 2002
otherwise be possible. This gives St. Modwen a competitive                     and the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of
advantage over the applicant.                                                  4 February 2002;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to compensate the applicant;
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission erred
in concluding that the measures in issue would have no effect
on competition and intra community trade. The applicant                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-389/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 and 49 EC — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Animal health — Artificial insemination centre for bovine animals — National rules conferring on authorised centres the exclusive right to provide the service of artificially inseminating bovine animals in a defined geographical area and making the issue of an inseminator's licence subject to the conclusion of an agreement with one of those centres)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-389/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 and 49 EC - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Animal health - Artificial insemination centre for bovine animals - National rules conferring on authorised centres the exclusive right to provide the service of artificially inseminating bovine animals in a defined geographical area and making the issue of an inseminator's licence subject to the conclusion of an agreement with one of those centres)
   (2008/C 223/04)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and E. Traversa, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, A. Colomb and G. Le Bras, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 and 49 EC — Only ‘insemination centres’ authorised in France allowed to carry out activities relating to the artificial insemination of bovine animals.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by allowing only authorised artificial insemination centres, with exclusive rights over determined geographical areas, and persons holding an inseminator's licence, the issue of which is subject to the conclusion of an agreement with one of those centres, to provide the service of artificial insemination of bovine animals, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-241/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 15
pilot studies or preparatory action because it amounted to             Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
the initiation of substantive action, and exceeded the powers           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
of initiative of the Commission . The invitation was also
                                                                                Case C-243/96 )
unsupported by adequate reasoning.
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/31 )
It follows that the decision to seek applications for grants
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
comprised in or referred to by implication in the                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Commission 's memorandum should be annulled for lack of
                                                                       12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
competence, infringement of an essential procedural
                                                                       Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent,
requirement, and infringement of the Treaty .
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
                                                                       Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Commission of the                      prescribed period the laws, regulations and
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Commission Directive 93/62/EEC (') of 5 July 1993
                         ( Case C-241 /96 )                                  setting out the implementing measures concerning
                           ( 96/C 269/30 )                                   the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
                                                                             establishments pursuant to Council Directive
                                                                             92/33/EEC ( 2 )    on     the    marketing of  vegetable
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                   propagating and planting material other than seed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission ,
11 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-Durande , of                        obligations under Article 6 of the abovementioned
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Directive and also under the EC Treaty,
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
— declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force               forward in Case C-236/96 ( 3 ); the time limit set by the
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or             Directive expired on 30 June 1994 .
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992                       (') OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .
     introducing Community measures for the control of                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Newcastle disease ( 1 ), or notify the Commission thereof,        ( 3 ) See page 11 of this Official Journal .
     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-244/96 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                                ( 96/C 269/32 )
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the                   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                        12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the                    Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis , acting as Agent,
Commission thereof. The Hellenic Republic has not notified             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
the Commission of any laws, regulations or administrative              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
provisions necessary to bring domestic law into line with the
Directive .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
(') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with :


C 331/34             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
During an audit of the subsidies granted to the applicant, the          Pleas in law and main arguments
Eurostat internal audit unit found that subsidies had been paid
but not used and some expenditure that was not eligible. The            In support of his action, the applicant invokes an infringement
Commission subsequently decided to take steps to recover the            of the terms of the vacancy notice, an error in the assessment
amount in question.                                                     of those terms, and infringement of the principle of the
                                                                        protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant further
The applicant claims that the audit carried out by the                  pleads infringement of the principle of equal treatment as
Commission does not correctly evaluate certain information              between internal candidates and candidates external to the
and data and does not apply the principles in force concerning          institution inasmuch as the internal candidates had the benefit
internal Commission audits. The applicant also alleges that the         of being known by the appointing authority.
audit was one-sided and carried out by a service dependent on
one of the Contracting Parties. The applicant finally submits
that not all of the documents available were taken into
consideration in the audit.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-53/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Jean-Louis Cou-
gnon against the Court of Justice of the European Com-
                            munities                                    By order of 11 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-240/01)                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                        Case T-53/01, Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities.
                       (2001/C 331/56)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                  (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Jean-                          Removal from the register of Case T-98/01 (1)
Louis Cougnon, residing in Capellen, Luxembourg, represented
by Joëlle Choucron, avocat, with an address for service in                                      (2001/C 331/58)
Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the procedure for filling the post of Director of            By order of 30 July 2001, the President of the Fifth Chamber
     Personnel and Finances — career bracket A 2 — referred             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     to in Vacancy Notice CJ 78/00 received and published on            has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-98/01,
     17 October 2000,                                                   Filippos Pierros v Commission of the European Communities.
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.


title: Case C-233/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against Dario Lo Bue

text:
C 245/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
1.    Are goods which have been cleared for Community                          2000 (2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member
      transit removed from customs supervision if the transit                  States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertis-
      document T1 is temporarily removed from the consign-                     ing of foodstuffs (hereinafter ‘Directive 79/112’), and in
      ment?                                                                    particular Article 15 thereof; or
2.    If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative:                   —     Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
      Have goods cleared for Community transit been removed                    the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
      from customs supervision if the customs seal affixed to                  the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
      ensure their identification was opened and the goods                     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (hereinafter
      were partially unloaded, without the consignment first                   ‘Directive 00/13’), and in particular Article 18 thereof
      being duly produced for customs, even though the
      operation was arranged with the persons in question by             preclude a national rule which provides that, where foodstuffs
      customs investigation officers operating incognito and             are offered for sale after the period of their minimum durability
      observed in every detail by those officers?                        has expired, that fact must, even though their expiry date is
                                                                         displayed, be communicated clearly and in a generally intelli-
3.    If the Court answers one of Questions 1 and 2 in the               gible manner?
      affirmative:
      Do special circumstances exist within the meaning of
      Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 (1) if a customs               (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.
      investigation officer acting undercover has provoked
      infringements of the Community transit procedure? Does
      the deception or obviously negligent conduct of persons
      used by the principal in fulfilling the obligations assumed
      by him under the Community transit procedure preclude
      repayment to him of the duties incurred by the removal
      from customs supervision of goods cleared for Com-
      munity transit?                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                         di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the
                                                                         case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against
(1) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.                                                                    Dario Lo Bue
                                                                                (Case C-233/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/08)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich by order of                    (District Court), Palermo of 18 June 2001, received at the
that court of 1 June 2001 in the case of an appeal by                    Court Registry on 18 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
                         Susanne Müller                                  the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta (RAS) Spa against
                                                                         Dario Lo Bue on the following questions:
                         (Case C-229/01)                                 (1) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
                                                                               Directive 73/239/EEC (1) as amended by Article 6 of
                         (2001/C 245/07)                                       Council Directive 92/49/EEC (2), be interpreted as pre-
                                                                               cluding national legislation which, for the purposes of
                                                                               curbing inflation, applies only to insurance against third-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         party liability in connection with the use of motor
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                      vehicles, mopeds and motor cycles and makes no pro-
tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Independent Adminis-                      vision for intervention in matters concerning prices of
trative Chamber in the Land of Niederösterreich), of 1 June                    goods and services in general (as distinct from vehicle
2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a                    insurance), which are also factors in the calculation of the
preliminary ruling in the case of an appeal by Susanne Muller                  consumer price index?
on the following questions:
                                                                         (2) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Does                                                                           Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
                                                                               Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
—     Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1)                      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
      on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                    inflation, prohibits the alteration, not only of premium
      relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of               rates but also of the number of risk categories, the
      foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer in the version              coefficients for determining the premium and differential
      prior to the entry into force of Directive 2000/13/EC of                 premium rate systems under which the premium payable
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March                   depends on the claims record?
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 245/5
(3) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             Action brought on 19 June 2001 by the Commission of
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of                   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing                                     (Case C-235/01)
      inflation, also requires insurance undertakings, if the
      client so requests, to draw up policies the terms of which
      incorporate a bonus-malus arrangement (positive or                                          (2001/C 245/10)
      negative adjustment of the premium on the basis of the
      claims record) subject to an excess in an amount set
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      between the minimum and the maximum level permitted
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 June
      by law?
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(4) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             represented by Bernard Mongin and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                       as Agents.
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      inflation, provides that, on expiry of the period during
      which premium rates were frozen, the insured person              —     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulation and
      may withdraw from the contract if, on the date for annual              administrative provisions necessary for compliance with
      renewal of the policy, an increase is applied to the                   Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending
      premium (not provided for under a customised arrange-                  Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of
      ment) higher than the scheduled rate of inflation decided              seafarers (1), or in any event by not forwarding those
      by the Government?                                                     provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(1) OJ L 228 of 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                       —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                             proceedings.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
Berlin by order of that court of 28 May 2001 in the case               provides that a directive is binding on each Member State to
   of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord                  which it is addressed as to the result to be achieved, involves
                                                                       an obligation on Member States to respect the periods for
                        (Case C-234/O1)                                transposition laid down in directives. That period expired on
                                                                       1 July 1999 without the Italian Republic having issued the
                        (2001/C 245/09)                                provisions necessary for compliance with the directive cited in
                                                                       the forms of order sought by the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht (Finance            (1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.
Court), Berlin, of 28 May 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt (District Tax
Office) Neukölln-Nord on the following question:
Is there an infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                       Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic
Article 43 EC) where, under Paragraph 50a(4), first sentence,
                                                                       of Germany against the Commission of the European
point (1) and second sentence, of the Einkommensteuergesetz
                                                                                Communities
(Law on Income Tax) as in force in 1996 (’EStG 1996’), a
Netherlands national who earns in the Federal Republic of
Germany taxable net income of approximately                                                       (Case C-239/01)
DEM 5 000 from self-employed activity in the calendar year is
subject to deduction of tax at source by the person liable to                                     (2001/C 245/11)
pay his fees at the rate of 25 % his (gross) revenue of
approximately DEM 6 000 plus solidarity surcharge, where it
is not possible, by means of an application for a refund or an         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
application for a tax assessment, for him to recover, in whole         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
or in part, the taxes paid?                                            Communities on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and J. Sedemund,
                                                                       acting as Agents.


title: Case T-129/16: Action brought on 24 March 2016 — Claranet Europe v EUIPO — Claro (claranet)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/30

         Action brought on 24 March 2016 — Claranet Europe v EUIPO — Claro (claranet)
   (Case T-129/16)
   (2016/C 175/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Claranet Europe Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: G. Crown and D. Farnsworth, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Claro SA (São Paulo, Brazil)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark in red ‘claranet’ — Application for registration No 11 265 113

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 803/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO (and if applicable, any intervener) to bear its own and pay the applicant’s costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-240/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Alifoods — Earlier international and Community word marks ALDI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods)
      (Case T-240/13) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Alifoods - Earlier international and Community word marks ALDI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
      (2015/C 016/55)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

         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: Alifoods, SA (Alicante, Spain)

         Re:

      Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2013 (Case R 407/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and Alifoods, SA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-485/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Directive 91/628/EEC — Point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex — Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Article 5(3) — Export refunds — Protection of bovine animals during rail transport — Conditions for payment of export refunds for bovine animals — Compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-485/09) (1)

   (Directive 91/628/EEC - Point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex - Regulation (EC) No 615/98 - Article 5(3) - Export refunds - Protection of bovine animals during rail transport - Conditions for payment of export refunds for bovine animals - Compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC - Principle of proportionality)
   2011/C 252/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52), and in particular of point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to that directive, and interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19) — Transport of bovine animals by rail — Applicability of the animal-welfare rules concerning watering and feeding intervals, journey times and rest periods

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, applies inter alia to rail transport;

               2.

               In situations in which the breach of Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, has not resulted in the death of the animals being transported, the competent authorities and courts of the Member States, when carrying out their checks or review, are required to apply Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality, by refusing to pay the export refund for animals in respect of which the provisions of that directive concerning their welfare have not been complied with.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case F-29/11: Action brought on 21 March 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/16

         Action brought on 21 March 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-29/11)
   2011/C 173/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the selection board’s decision in competition EPSO/AD/147/09-RO not to admit the applicant to the oral test in that competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Director of EPSO’s decision of 10 December 2010 to dismiss the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               in so far as it is necessary, annul the selection board’s decision in competition EPSO/AD/147/09-RO to award the applicant an eliminatory mark of 6/10 for his written test C;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-49/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 3 February 2011 — Content Services Ltd v Bundesarbeitskammer

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 3 February 2011 — Content Services Ltd v Bundesarbeitskammer
   (Case C-49/11)
   2011/C 145/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Content Services Ltd

      Defendant: Bundesarbeitskammer

      Question referred

               1.

               Is the requirement in Article 5(1) of [Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers (1) in respect of distance contracts] to the effect that a consumer must receive confirmation of the information specified there in a durable medium available and accessible to him, unless the information has already been given to him on conclusion of the contract in a durable medium available and accessible to him, satisfied, where that information is made available to the consumer by means of a hyperlink on the trader’s website which is contained in a line of text that the consumer must mark as read by ticking a box in order to be able to enter into a contractual relationship?

      (1)  Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts — Statement by the Council and the Parliament re Article 6 (1) — Statement by the Commission re Article 3 (1), first indent (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19).


title: Case F-76/10: Action brought on 10 September 2010 — Colart and Others v Parliament

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/64

         Action brought on 10 September 2010 — Colart and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-76/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/104
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Colart (Bastogne, Belgium) and Others (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicants’ correcting pay slips for the period from July to December 2009 and the pay slips issued after 1 January 2010 in the context of the annual adjustment of remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicants’ RG 2009 pay slips (adjustment arrears from July to December 2009), their pay slips of January 2010 and their subsequent pay slips, since those pay slips apply an adjustment rate of 1,85 % instead of 3,70 %, on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009, while preserving the effect of those pay slips until the adoption of fresh pay slips which apply correctly Articles 65 and 65a of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations (2010 version)

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.