11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 227/15
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘birds               Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the
directive’) by 1 January 1995. As of that date the obligations                 European Communities against French Republic
under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds directive in
respect of all areas classified pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of                               (Case C-259/01)
the birds directive were replaced by the obligations in
Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May                                      (2001/C 227/27)
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (‘habitats directive’) as laid down in Article 7 of that       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
directive.                                                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July 2001
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
As regards the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds               by Roland Tricot acting as Agent, with an address for service
directive with reference to Article 6(3) and (4) of the habitats         in Luxembourg.
directive the Swedish government considered that a number                The applicant claims that the Court should:
of amendments to its legislation were required to implement
the directive. The Commission claims that the necessary                  (a)   Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
measures were not taken within the period of two months                        within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                               the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules
As regards the consultation obligation under Article 6(3) of                   for the internal market in natural gas (1), the French
the birds directive the Commission claims that the necessary                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
measures were not taken within the period of two months                        directive and, in particular, Article 29;
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.
                                                                         (b) Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Finally, as regards the deficiencies in the correct implemen-
tation of Article 9 of the birds directive, the legal provisions         Pleas in law and main arguments
which Sweden claims incorporate Article 9, that is to say
Paragraph 23a of the Jaktförordningen (hunting regulation),              Under the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first
which incorporates Article 9(1)(a), Paragraph 9 of the Jaktlagen         paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty France was required
(hunting law), which incorporates Article 9(1)(c) and Para-              to adopt the measures necessary to transpose Directive
graph 31 of the Jaktförordningen, which incorporates                     98/30/EC at the latest by 10 August 2000, the date laid down
Article 9(1)(b), do not contain the specific information required        in Article 29 thereof.
under Article 9(2) of the birds directive. The further dero-
gations in the Swedish Jaktförordningen (Paragraphs 14, 15,              (1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 1.
20, 21, 27 and 29), in Paragraph 12 of the Artskyddförordn-
ingen (species protection regulation) (SFS 1998:1790) and in
Paragraph 5 of the protective provisions of the Naturvårdverket
(Swedish environment protection board) (NFS 1997:5) do not
contain the information required under Article 9(2) of the
birds directive. Nor does Paragraph 9b of the Jaktförordningen                  Removal from the register of Case C-216/00 (1)
specify the conditions of risk as prescribed by the third indent
of Article 9(2).                                                                                (2001/C 227/28)
                                                                         By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9.                                           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                           the register of Case C-216/00: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case C-251/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 28 — Exemption with refund of the tax paid — Sale of goods taxed at zero-rate fitted with goods taxed at the standard rate — Residential caravans — Single supply)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   (Case C-251/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 28 - Exemption with refund of the tax paid - Sale of goods taxed at zero-rate fitted with goods taxed at the standard rate - Residential caravans - Single supply)
   (2006/C 212/14)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 28(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Zero-rated goods (caravans) supplied with standard-rated items — Criteria for determining whether the transaction must be regarded as a single supply for the purposes of VAT
   Operative part of the judgment
   The fact that specific goods are counted as a single supply, including both a principal item which is by virtue of a Member State's legislation subject to an exemption with refund of the tax paid within the meaning of Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates), and items which that legislation excludes from the scope of that exemption, does not prevent the Member State concerned from levying VAT at the standard rate on the supply of those excluded items.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.


title: Case C-333/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Energy Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Energy Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
   (Case C-333/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.On Energy Trading SpA

      Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

      Question referred

   Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37


title: Case C-146/03 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris International, Inc., against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European Communities, supported by European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
21.6.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 146/27
Appeal brought on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris                        Pleas in law and main arguments
International, Inc., against the judgment delivered on
15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended
Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        The Appellant contends that, in the contested judgment, the
European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/
                                                                        Court of First Instance made the following errors of law:
00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip
Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Hold-
ings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and                  1.    The Court of First Instance violated the concept of a
Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European                           challengeable act under Article 230 EC by:
Communities, supported by European Parliament,
Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Repub-
                                                                              —     considering that bringing proceedings on the basis
lic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the
                                                                                of the contested acts is comparable to bringing
                           Netherlands
                                                                                proceedings under Article 226 EC;
                        (Case C-146/03 P)
                                                                              —     considering that the admitted lack of competence to
                                                                                adopt the contested acts and the subsequent creation
                         (2003/C 146/45)
                                                                                and exercise of such competence do not alter the
                                                                                legal position of the parties to the case;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003
                                                                              —     failing to consider that the contested acts produced
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
                                                                                legal effects through the mere fact that they deprived
of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
                                                                                the Appellant of certain legal protections and advan-
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and
                                                                                tages within the Community legal order;
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission                   —     considering that case C-345/00 P, FNAB, can be
of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-                          applied to the instant case;
ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of
Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                              —     failing to consider that the contested acts are open
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                to judicial review since they are manifestly illegal;
Communities on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris Inter-
                                                                                and finally
national, Inc., established in Rye Brook, New York (United
States), represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and F. Marchini
Camia, lawyers.
                                                                              —     as a first alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
                                                                                reasoning is correct (quod non) that only the decision
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                         of the US District Court of the Eastern district of
                                                                                New York produces legal effects, then the Court of
                                                                                First Instance erred in law by considering, notwith-
—     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                standing the circumstances of the case, that the
      15 January 2003 in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00,
                                                                                contested acts cannot be reviewed under Article 230
      T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01; and
                                                                                EC;
—     give final judgment on the issue of admissibility, pursuant
      to Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statutes of the
      Court of Justice, by declaring the Appellant’s actions for              —     as a second alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
      annulment admissible and refer the case back to the                           reasoning is correct (quod non) that it is not possible
      Court of First Instance for examination of the substance                      to separately review a decision to initiate a law suit,
      of the case; or                                                               it should have joined the question of admissibility
                                                                                to the substance.
—     failing that, refer the case back to the Court of First
      Instance for judgment on the admissibility issue and
      subsequently and/or simultaneously on the substance of            2.    The Court of First Instance contradicted itself on an
      the case; and                                                           essential point of law.
—     order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs before
      the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.             3.    The Court of First Instance violated Article 292 EC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.6.2003
4.    The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective      1.     Must Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
      judicial protection.                                                    of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                              schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                              and to members of their families moving within the
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.                                               Community (1) be interpreted as applying only where a
( 3) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.                                                 migrant worker is entitled to family benefits under the
( 4) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.                                                 legislation of the State of employment and under the
                                                                              legislation of the State in which the members of his
                                                                              family are resident?
                                                                       2.     If so, may the bodies of the State of employment suspend
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-                       entitlement to family benefits where they consider that a
richt München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — by order of                         refusal to grant family benefits in the State of residence is
that Court of 27 March 2003 in the case of Nürnberger                         incompatible with Community law?
Allgemeine Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Trans-
                     port International B.V.
                                                                       3.     If not, does Article 76 of Regulation No 1408/71 permit
                          (Case C-148/03)                                     the State of employment to apply the rule against
                                                                              aggregation of benefits where, under the law of the State
                          (2003/C 146/46)                                     of residence of the family members, the worker’s spouse
                                                                              receives or is entitled to similar family benefits?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — (Munich Higher
Regional Court, Civil Chambers in Augsburg) of 27 March                (1 ) as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/
                                                                            83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6).
2003, received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Nürnberger Allgemeine
Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Transport International
B.V. on the following question:
Do the provisions on jurisdiction contained in other conven-
tions take precedence over the general provisions on jurisdic-
tion in the Brussels Convention even where a defendant
domiciled in the territory of a State which is a party to the
Brussels Convention and against whom an action has been
brought before a court of another State which is a party to
that Convention fails to submit pleas as to the merits of the
case in the proceedings before that court?
                                                                       Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judg-
ment of that Court of 6 March 2003 in the case of                                                (Case C-154/03)
Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales against Ursula
                    SCHWARZ, née WEIDE
                          (Case C-153/03)                                                        (2003/C 146/48)
                          (2003/C 146/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
(Court of Cassation) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of               An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
6 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on 3 April 2003,          Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse Nationale des           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Prestations Familiales against Ursula SCHWARZ, née WEIDE               Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
on the following questions:                                            Luxembourg.


title: Case T-273/07: Action brought on 16 July 2007 — Torres v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORREGAZATE)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/13

         Action brought on 16 July 2007 — Torres v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORREGAZATE)
   (Case T-273/07)
   (2007/C 235/23)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vinícola de Tomelloso S.C.L.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 2 May 2007 in case No R 610/2006-2 and order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vinícola de Tomelloso S.C.L.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘TORREGAZATE’ (application No 3.134.665) for products in class 33 (wines, spirits and liqueurs).

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the various national word marks ‘TORRES’ for products in class 33 and other Community, international and national word and figurative marks which consist of or include the term ‘TORRES’ and cover the same products as the former.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-690/13: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2015 — In vivo v Commission (Action for failure to act — Refusal of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to open an external investigation — Position defined — Application for directions to be issued — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/45

         Order of the General Court of 22 June 2015 — In vivo v Commission
   (Case T-690/13) (1)

   ((Action for failure to act - Refusal of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to open an external investigation - Position defined - Application for directions to be issued - No direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 311/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: In vivo OOO (Abinsk, Russia) (represented by: T. Huopalainen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action seeking a declaration by the General Court that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) failed to act in refusing to open an external investigation and an order that it remedy the situation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               In vivo OOO shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2002 in Case T-70/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary agents — Execution of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Dismissal)

text:
C 44/22                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and K.-D. Borchardt), supported by
                                                                             Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: initially W.-D. Plessing
                       of 5 December 2002                                    and T. Jürgensen, and, subsequently, Plessing and M. Lumma):
                                                                             Application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                             of 22 December 1999 relating to proposed State Aid No 506/
in Case T-70/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the
                                                                             99, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             Composition), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                             J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christen-
(Temporary agents — Execution of a judgment of the Court                     sen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                 of First Instance — Dismissal)                              5 December 2002, in which it:
                          (2003/C 44/38)
                                                                             1.     Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             2.     Reserves costs.
In Case T-70/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer, formerly a temporary                      (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
agent of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Hoeilaart, Belgium, represented by G. van der Wal,
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
G. Valsesia and C. Van der Hauwaert, subsequently F. Clotuche-
Duvieusart and H.M.H. Speyart) — application for annulment
of the Commission’s decision of 24 January 2000 terminating
the applicant’s contract of employment as temporary agent —                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
M. Vilaras, President, and V.Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                                    of 10 December 2002
gave a judgment on 5 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                             in Case T-123/00: Dr. Karl Thomae GmbH v Commission
1.     Dismissed the application;                                                            of the European Communities ( 1)
2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                                                                             (Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2309/93 — Community marketing authorisation —
( 1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                  Regulation (EC) No 542/95 — Variation of the terms of the
                                                                             authorisation — Name and package layout of the medicinal
                                                                                product)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/40)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                       of 5 December 2002
in Case T-114/00: Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigen-                       In Case T-123/00, Dr Karl Thomae GmbH, established in
   tum eV v Commission of the European Communities (1)                       Biberach an der Riß (Germany), represented by D. Waelbroeck
                                                                             and D. Brinckman, Lawyers, with an address for service in
(State aid — Scheme for the acquisition of agricultural and                  Luxembourg, supported by European Federation of Pharma-
forestry land in the former German Democratic Republic —                     ceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), established in
Failure to initiate the formal review procedure provided for                 Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Perkins, Solicitor, and
in Article 88(2) EC — System of aid — Action for annulment                   M. Van Kerckhove, Lawyer, with an address for service in
                — Association — Admissibility)                               Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: R. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk), supported by
                          (2003/C 44/39)                                     Council of the European Union (Agents: M.-C. Giorgi and
                                                                             G. Houttuin): Application for annulment of the decision of
                                                                             1 March 2000 of the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             Medicinal Products, rejecting an application for variation of
                                                                             certain terms of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal
                                                                             product, ‘Daquiran’, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
In Case T-114/00, Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum                     composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
eV, established in Borken (Germany), represented by M. Pech-                 P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
stein, professor, v Commission of the European Communities                   has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-117/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin made on  21 February 2006  in the land registry case of Gerda Möllendorf, Christiane Möllendorf-Niehuus; joined parties: 1. Salem -Abdul Ghani El-Rafeil, 2. Dr. Kamal Rafehi, 3 Ageel A. Al-Ageel

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin made on 21 February 2006 in the land registry case of Gerda Möllendorf, Christiane Möllendorf-Niehuus; joined parties: 1. Salem -Abdul Ghani El-Rafeil, 2. Dr. Kamal Rafehi, 3 Ageel A. Al-Ageel
   (Case C-117/06)
   (2006/C 108/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Kammergericht Berlin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gerda Möllendorf, Christiane Möllendorf

      Joined Parties: 1. Salem-Abdul Ghani El-Rafei, 2. Dr. Kamal Rafehi, 3. Ageel A. Al-Ageel
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Articles 2(3) and 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (1) prohibit property from being conveyed in performance of a sale and purchase agreement to a natural person listed in Annex I to that regulation?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: does Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 prohibit entry in the land register necessary for transferring ownership in the property also when the underlying sale and purchase agreement has been concluded, and the conveyance declared binding, before publication of the limitation on disposal in the Official Journal of the European Communities, and the contractual purchase price to be paid by the natural person listed in Annex I to the regulation, as purchaser, has already been

                           (a)

                           deposited on the notarial trust account or

                           (b)

                           paid to the seller?

      (1)  OJ L 139, p. 9.


title: Case C-97/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2014  — Louis Vuitton Malletier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Friis Group International ApS (Appeal — Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative mark representing a locking device — No distinctive character — Partial invalidity — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b))

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/3

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2014 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Friis Group International ApS
   (Case C-97/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative mark representing a locking device - No distinctive character - Partial invalidity - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b)))
   2014/C 212/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto, E. Gavuzzi and N. Parrotta, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Friis Group International (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, advokat)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2011 in Case T-237/10 Vuitton Malletier v OHIM and Friis Group International (Representation of a locking device), by which the General Court partially granted an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark representing a locking device, for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25, against Decision No R 1590/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 February 2010, partially annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division which rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal;

               3.

               Orders Louis Vuitton Malletier, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Friis Group International ApS each to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case T-142/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van Huffel against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/29
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van Huffel                       Action brought on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Servier against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                         (Case T-142/00)
                                                                                (Case T-147/00)
                         (2000/C 247/51)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/52)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 25 May 2000 by Michel Van                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Huffel, residing at Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented              European Communities on 31 May 2000 by Les Laboratories
by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.             Servier, represented by Elisabethann Wright of White & Case,
                                                                         Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of the selection board in internal
       competition COM/TA/99 rejecting the application sub-              —     declare that the decision of the Commission of 9 March
       mitted by the applicant;                                                2000 concerning the withdrawal of marketing authoris-
                                                                               ations for medicinal products for human use which
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   contain the substances ‘Dexfenfluramine’ and ‘Fenflurami-
                                                                               ne’ is invalid and should be annulled.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     award the applicant the costs of the present action.
The applicant states that, since December 1995, he has worked
continuously for the Commission under successive contracts               Pleas in law and main arguments
as an in-house consultant, as a member of the auxiliary staff
and as a member of the temporary staff. In December 1999 he
applied to take part in internal competition COM/TA/99                   The contested decision requires the Member States to withdraw
organised by the Commission for the constitution of a reserve            the marketing authorisations of Dexfenfluramine and Fenflura-
list of grade A7/A8 and A5/A4 administrators and principal               mine containing medicinal products. The applicant manufac-
administrators. The selection board in that competition                  tures pharmaceutical products containing these substances.
decided to reject his application on the ground that he did not
fulfil the condition requiring applicants to be members of the
regular staff of the Commission who had entered into service             It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
by no later than 1 February 1997, as provided for in the notice          grounds:
of competition.
                                                                         —     The decision was not addressed to the applicant as the
                                                                               holder of the marketing authorisation, contrary to the
The applicant claims that that decision is illegal, since it is                terms of the relevant legislation.
based, first, on an irregular administrative situation which itself
resulted from an abuse of process and, second, on an unlawful
condition for admission to the competition, inasmuch as it is            —     The criteria set forth in Directive 65/65 (1), as interpreted
contrary to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.                               by the European Court, for the withdrawal of marketing
                                                                               authorisation are that the product is harmful in the
                                                                               normal conditions of use or that its therapeutic effect is
He further maintains that, in considering that he did not form                 lacking. The decision does not rely upon these criteria,
part of the regular staff of the Commission at the material                    but mentions other criteria.
time, the selection board committed a manifest error of
assessment.
                                                                         —     By reading the same CPMP report in 1996 and in
                                                                               2000 as conveying radically different information, the
                                                                               Commission made a manifest error of appreciation in
                                                                               reaching its decision.


title: Case C-658/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Robeco Hollands Bezit NV and Others v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Robeco Hollands Bezit NV and Others v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)
   (Case C-658/15)
   (2016/C 098/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Robeco Hollands Bezit NV, Robeco Duurzaam Aandelen NV, Robeco Safe Mix NV, Robeco Solid Mix NV, Robeco Balanced Mix NV, Robeco Growth Mix NV, Robeco Life Cycle Funds NV, Robeco Afrika Fonds NV, Robeco Global Stars Equities, Robeco All Strategy Euro Bonds, Robeco High Yield Bonds, Robeco Property Equities

      Respondent: Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

      Question referred

   Must a system in which multiple fund agents and brokers participate who, within that system, represent respectively ‘open end’ investment funds and investors in commercial transactions, and which, in fact, facilitates exclusively those ‘open end’ investment funds in their obligation to execute the purchase and selling orders for shares placed by investors, be regarded as a regulated market within the meaning of Article 4(1).14 of the MiFID (1) and, if so, what characteristics are determinant in that regard?

      (1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht (Regional Labour Court) Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by order of that court of 16 April 1998 in the case of Silke-Karin Mahlburg v Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Case C-207/98)

text:
25.7.98                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 234/21
     naturally used predominantly by goods vehicles in                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeits-
     regional and local traffic, registered in Austria. For           gericht (Regional Labour Court) Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
     traffic on those part sections, significantly, there has         mern by order of that court of 16 April 1998 in the case of
     not even been an adjustment for inflation.                        Silke-Karin Mahlburg v Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
                                                                                (Case C-207/98)
                                                                                (98/C 234/40)
     There is also an indirect difference of treatment on
     grounds of the nationality of the carrier in the fact
     that the two toll increases together apply only to
     goods vehicles of more than three axles, whereas for
     goods vehicles of up to three axles no toll increases            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     have been introduced even for the whole Brenner                  European Communities by an order of the Landesarbeits-
     motorway route, since in the latter category vehicles of         gericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern of 16 April 1998,
     Austrian registration are clearly dominant. The                  which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June 1998,
     different treatment cannot be justified on the basis of          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Silke-Karin
     greater wear on the roads, since not only the number             Mahlburg v Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on the
     of axles but also factors such as the total tonnage in           following question:
     proportion to the number of axles, the axle load and
     the suspension system of the driving axles play a
     decisive role in this respect.
                                                                      Is there unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex within
                                                                      the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC of
                                                                      9 February 1976 (1) where an employer does not employ
     Finally, the Brenner motorway toll system also                   an applicant in a vacant post, which she is qualified to
     indirectly differentiates according to the origin and            hold, because she is pregnant and cannot from the outset
     destination of goods vehicles. The imposition of quite           and for the duration of her pregnancy be employed in the
     disproportionately high tolls on the whole route as              post, which is intended to be occupied permanently,
     opposed to the part sections affects especially transit          because of a prohibition on employment under the
     traffic, that is, traffic whose origin and destination are       Mutterschutzgesetz (Maternity Law)?
     both outside Austria. The converse applies to the
     exemption from the toll increase of goods vehicles of
                                                                      (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
     not more than three axles.
Ð Infringement of Article 7(h) of the directive: Under
     Article 7(h) of the directive, toll increases must be
     related to increased costs of the toll roads themselves.
     In the present case this is quite evidently the case only
     to a very limited extent. The operating company's                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
     expenditure on the Brenner motorway, according to                Potsdam by order of that court of 27 April 1998 in the
     information from the Austrian Government, has partly             case of Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG against Andreas
     fallen considerably in recent years, yet in the same                                          Siepert
     period markedly higher toll income has been received.
                                                                                (Case C-208/98)
     The      Austrian      Government      wrongly    adduces
     expenditure by the financing company ASFINAG for                                         (98/C 234/41)
     other motorways and expressways in Austria. The
     term network' in Article 7(h) of the directive, in the
     context of the provisions relating to tolls, can only
     mean those roads for whose use tolls are lawfully
     charged. Since Austria levies a general user charge for          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     motor vehicles with a maximum permitted weight of                European Communities by order of the Landgericht
     not less than 12 tonnes (fourth indent of Article 2 of           Potsdam (Regional Court, Potsdam) of 27 April 1998,
     the directive), that means in the present case only the          received at the Court registry on 2 June 1998, for a
     Brenner motorway itself, in so far as it is to be                preliminary ruling in the case of Berliner Kindl Brauerei
     regarded as a series of bridges, tunnels and mountain           AG v Andreas Siepert on the following question:
     passes'.
(1) OJ L 279 of 12.11.1993, p. 32.                                    Does a contract of guarantee concluded by a natural
(2) [1995] ECR I-1827.                                                person not acting in the course of a trade or profession
                                                                      fall within the scope of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of
                                                                      22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws,
                                                                      regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
                                                                      States concerning consumer credit (OJ L 42 of 12.2.1987,


title: Action brought on 2 November 1995 by Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-207/95)

text:
No C 351 / 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 12 . 95
Treaty by two post offices which relied upon a market                            legitimate expectations, non-discrimination and
allocation     scheme     set  out   in  the  Universal     Postal               sound administration .
Convention. The behaviour in question of the post offices
named in the complaint was directed towards suppressing                (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 12 .
or restraining 'remail' competition , a practice whereby a             ( 2 ) OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 , p . 17.
mailer prepares international mail in one country but posts            (<) OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 , p . 22 .
the mail not with the post office of that country but with a
post office located in another country .
On 23 November 1994 , the applicant called on the
Commission to act, under Article 175 , by adopting a                   Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse against
definitive position on the complaint as far as Article 85 is           the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
concerned . On 15 February 1995 , not having received any                                 the European Communities
decision from the Commission, the applicant lodged at the
                                                                                ( Case T-206/95 )
Court of First Instance an application under Article 175
against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ) ( ! ).                                  ( 95/C 351 /35 )
On 17 February 1995 , the Commission adopted Decision
SG(95 ) D/ 1790, rejecting as regards Article 85 of the EC                              (Language of the case: German)
Treaty, the complaint made by the applicant. The applicant
challenged that Decision by its application of 18 April 1995           An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Case T-l 10/95 ) ( 2 ). On 6 April 1995 , the Commission             the Commission of the European Communities was brought
adopted Decision SG(95)D/4438 , rejecting the second part              before the Court of First Instance of the European
of the aforementioned complaint. The applicant sought the               Communities on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse, residing
annulment of that Decision by its application of 20 June               at Schmallenberg ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
 1995 ( Case T-133/95 ) ( 3 ). On 14 August 1995 , the                 represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
Commission further adopted the purported Decision, which                Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and Dr Winfried
is contested here, rejecting the complaint with respect to the          Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
application of Article 25 of the Universal Postal Convention            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
solely to ABC remail by the German, UK and French post                  Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
offices .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
In this respect the applicant submits the following pleas in
 law:                                                                   ( 1 ) order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                              applicant milk quota compensation ( SLOM-III ) for the
— as a principal plea, that the Commission's purported                        period from 2 April 1984 to 31 March 1993 ,
    Decision of 14 August 1995 should be declared                             amounting to DM 14 219,09, together with 8%
    non-existent because it constitutes a manifestly illegal                  interest from 19 May 1992 , and to pay the costs of the
    act ,                                                                     proceedings;
— in the alternative, that the Decision should be annulled,             ( 2 ) stay the proceedings .
    on the grounds of:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in that
          the Commission fails to state its reasons ( i ) as to the     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
          allegation that the Post Offices' use of Article 25 of        in Case T-20/94 .
          the UPU Convention infringes Article 85 of the EC
          Treaty, and ( ii ) as to the fact that it adopted two
          different positions in respect of the same factual and
          legal situation,
     — infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty               Action brought on 2 November 1995 by Maria de los
          through the Commission 's failure to condemn the               Angeles Ibarra Gil against the Commission of the European
          Post Offices' efforts to restrain the development of                                       Communities
          ABC remail through the use of the authority and                                        ( Case T-207/95 )
          purported authority of Article 25 of the UPU                                              ( 95/C 351 /36 )
          Convention,
     — misuse of powers in that the Commission's main                                    (Language of the case: French)
          purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to
          achieve political objectives,                                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     — breach of certain general principles of law in that, in           Instance of the European Communities on 2 November
          adopting the decision, the Commission infringed the             1 995 by Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil, residing in Brussels
          principles of legal certainty, the protection of               ( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 95          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 351 / 19
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                Moreover, the Commission itself decided to allow all
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue Nassau .                            members of the temporary staff whose entry into service
                                                                     commenced after July 1988 and before March 1992 — as in
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         the case of the applicant — to take part in two competitions,
                                                                     provided that they could show that they had completed not
— declare the action admissible ,                                    less than three years' service as members of the temporary
                                                                     staff. Since the Commission restricted its powers by stating
— declare notice of competition COM/T/B/95 illegal and               that the category of servants eligible for equal treatment as
     inapplicable to the applicant,                                  regards access to competitions leading to establishment was
                                                                     to comprise servants who entered into service within those
— annul the decision of the selection board of 7 November            two dates, the applicant's inability to obtain an extension
     1994    refusing    to    admit    her   to   competition       until 30 September 1994 of her status as a member of the
    COM/T/B/95 ,                                                     temporary staff cannot constitute objective justification for
                                                                     the difference in treatment .
— declare that the decisions by which the Commission
    adopted its general policy regarding temporary staff in          Lastly, the applicant pleads a breach in the present case of
     March 1992 and February 1994 are in breach of the               the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
    principles referred to in the applicant's pleas, and declare     officials .
    them inapplicable to the applicant,
— annul the decision of the Commission of 27 July 1995
    refusing to admit her to any competition leading to
    establishment other than competition COM/T/B/95 ,
— order the Commission to pay her damages on account of              Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Miwon Co. Ltd
    the erroneous and prejudicial nature of the contested               against the Commission of the European Communities
    decisions; the applicant reserves the right to submit later                              ( Case T-208/95 )
    on in the proceedings detailed calculations of the loss
    suffered by her,                                                                           ( 95/C 351 /37 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                              (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought .before the Court of First
The applicant, formerly a member of the temporary staff in           Instance of the European Communities on 3 November
category B and currently a member, in the same category, of          1995 by Miwon Co . Ltd, represented by Mr Jean-Francois
the auxiliary staff of the Commission, contests the refusal by       Bellis, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
the selection board in internal competition COM/T/B/95 to            Chambers of A. F. Brausch , 8 Rue Zithe .
admit her to the tests in that competition on the ground that
she was not a member of the temporary staff on the date
when she submitted her application . That decision was               The applicant claims that the Court should :
taken on the basis of a notice of competition requiring
candidates to have completed, by 30 September 1994 at the            — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1754/95 of
latest, a minimum of three years' service as a servant of the              18 July 1995 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty
Communities , as defined in the Conditions of Employment                  on imports of monosodium glutamate originating, inter
of other Servants, and to be a member of the temporary staff              alia, in the Republic of Korea in so far as it considers that
in category B on that date .                                              the applicant violated its undertaking and imposes
                                                                          a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
The applicant points out in that regard that she signed, in               monosodium glutamate manufactured by the applicant,
accordance with the indications given by the administration,              and
a contract of employment as a member of the auxiliary staff
of one month 's duration, in order to be eligible to take part       — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
in a competition leading to establishment. It was in fact for             proceedings .
that reason that the applicant, legitimately believing on the
basis of what she had been told that she would be admitted
to the tests, did not lodge a complaint against the notice of        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
competition in question .
                                                                     The applicant, a limited company established under the laws
The applicant maintains, first, that there has been a breach         of the Republic of Korea, produces a wide range of food and
of the principle of legitimate expectations , inasmuch as she        chemical products , including monosodium glutamate
was given clear assurances by the competent departments of            ( hereinafter ' MSG'), a product used as a flavour enhancer
the Commission that she had the right to take part in the            in food products. It states that on 27 June 1990 , the
competition in question as a member of the auxiliary                  Council adopted Regulation ( F'EC ) No 1798/90 imposing
staff.                                                                a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of MSG


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2000 in Case T-317/99: Franz Lemaître v the Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Installation allowance — Article 4(1)(b) and Article 5 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
9.12.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 355/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 July 2000
                      of 27 September 2000
                                                                           in Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-317/99: Franz Lemaître v the Commission of
                  the European Communities(1)
                                                                           (ECSC Treaty — State aid — Operating aid — Conditions
                                                                           for authorisation — Obligation to state reasons — Further
                                                                           steps in proceedings after interlocutory judgment — Appli-
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Installation allow-                         cation manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
ance — Article 4(1)(b) and Article 5 of Annex VII to the
                         Staff Regulations)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/52)
                          (2000/C 355/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc, with its registered office at
                                                                           Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by M. Brealey, Barris-
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           ter, and J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10
                                                                           Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
In Case T-317/99: Franz Lemaître, official at the Commission               Communities (Agents: initially P.F. Nemitz, and subsequently
of the European Communities, residing in Céroux-Mousty                     K.-D. Borchardt and N. Khan), supported by Federal Republic
(Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, of the Brussels                 of Germany (Agents: C.-D. Quassowski, and M. Schütte),
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Société de               Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and RAG
gestion fiduciaire SARL, 13, avenue du Bois, against the                   Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen, Germany, represented
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 by M. Hansen, of the Copenhagen Bar, and S.B. Völcker,
and D. Waelbroeck) — application for the annulment of the                  Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in Luxem-
decisions contained in letters from the Commission of                      bourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue
18 February 1999 and 12 March 1999 refusing to grant                       Goethe — application for annulment of Commission Decision
the applicant an expatriation allowance and an installation                98/687/ECSC of 10 June 1998 on German aid to the coal
allowance, respectively — the Court of First Instance (Single-             industry for 1997 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 30) — the Court of First
Judge Chamber — R.M. Moura Ramos); G. Herzig, adminis-                     Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 September                 of: J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and
2000, in which it:                                                         A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                           25 July 2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 12 March 1999               1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foun-
      refusing to grant the applicant an installation allowance;                 dation in law, in so far as it is based on pleas in law which
                                                                                were not rejected by the interlocutory judgment of 9 September
                                                                                1999 in this case.
2.    dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                Commission and RAG Aktiengesellschaft, including those
3.    orders the Commission to pay its own costs and half of the                 relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-110/98 R,
      applicant’s costs and orders the applicant to bear half of his             the interlocutory judgment and the order of 25 October 1999.
      own costs.
                                                                           3.    The Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                shall bear their own costs.
(1) OJ No C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.98.


title: Case C-534/07 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-30/05 William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/16

         Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-30/05 William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-534/07 P)
   (2008/C 37/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellants: William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and Ch. Hermann, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               1.

               To set aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 September 2007 in Case T-30/05, in so far as it affects the appellants,

               2.

               To annul Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles), in so far as it affects the appellants,
               In the alternative, to annul or reduce the fine imposed on the appellants by Article 2 of that decision,

               3.

               In the alternative to the second form of order sought, to refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment,

               4.

               To order the respondents in the appeal proceedings to pay the costs of the whole proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The Court of First Instance was wrong to conclude that the separation of the originally unified ‘hard haberdashery’ procedure into the ‘hard haberdashery: needles’ and ‘hard haberdashery: fasteners’ procedures without providing reasons for that separation did not infringe the appellants' rights of defence, in particular their right to a fair hearing.

               —

               In refusing to determine whether the separation of the ‘haberdashery’ procedure was unlawful because the infringement at issue was a single and continuing one, the Court of First Instance contravened the principle that access to justice must not be denied and the fundamental right to judicial protection.

               —

               The Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that there was no infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC. It wrongly considered the inadequate analysis by the Commission of the size of the markets considered to be relevant in the case and in relation to the concrete effects of the infringement on the market to be of no legal significance.

               —

               The Court of First Instance infringed the Guidelines on the Method of Setting Fines. It determined the gravity of the infringement by reference merely to the abstract form of the infringement and treated the lowest amount of an aggravating category as representing a minimum amount which could not be reduced. It also refused to treat the voluntary termination of the infringement as an attenuating circumstance, and in so doing infringed the principles of the rule of law and equal treatment.

               —

               Lastly, the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of proportionality. It applied the Guidelines on the Method of Setting Fines in determining the gravity of the infringement in a manner that was equally as formalistic and one-sided to the detriment of the appellants as the respondents in these proceedings had done. In addition, it failed to undertake the simultaneous weighting of all the relevant circumstances of the case that the principle of proportionality requires, and instead merely examined the proportionality of the fine in relation to discrete criteria that were considered on their own in every case.


title: Case C-416/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Padova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in the case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova

text:
27.1.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 28/17
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be         4.    must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 13, 36                (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg land                   1994) be disapplied by the Italian courts?
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with          5.    must bread baked from frozen or non-frozen part-baked
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the                   bread (lawfully manufactured in and imported from
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the                France) be allowed into free circulation without any
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by                restriction, such as the previous packaging requirement
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                     provided for in Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July
case?                                                                         1967 (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of
                                                                              22 February 1994)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Padova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in the
  case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
                                                                        31 October 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Werner
                                                                        Salentinig, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salz-
                         (Case C-416/00)
                                                                        burg, and (3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salz-
                                                                                burg
                          (2001/C 28/31)
                                                                                (Case C-420/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
                                                                                (2001/C 28/32)
Padova — Sezione II (Padua Civil District Court — Second
Chamber) of 16 October 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
on the following questions:                                             European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                                                                        tungssenat Salzburg of 31 October 2000, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 14 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
1.    must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967                   in the appeal concerning Dr (1) Werner Salentinig, (2)
      (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February           Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, and (3) Grund-
      1994), as interpreted by the Mayor of the Commune of              verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg:
      Padua in the contested order, in so far as it prohibits the
      sale of bread baked from frozen or non-frozen part-baked
      bread (lawfully manufactured in and imported from                 Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
      France), if it has not previously been packaged by the            interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
      reseller, be regarded as incompatible with Articles 30 and        and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
      36 of the EC Treaty?                                              Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
                                                                        No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
2.    must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967                   building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
      (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February           a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
      1994) and the subsequent construction placed upon it by           acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
      the Mayor of the Commune of Padua be regarded as a                fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
      quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent           the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
      effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty?         case?
3.    if so, may the Italian State avail itself of the derogation
      provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty for the purpose
      of protecting the health and lives of humans?


title: Case T-636/14: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2015 — Italy v Commission (Language regime — Vacancy notice for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union — Language requirements in the module for the online submission of applications — Alleged divergence with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/55

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-636/14) (1)

   ((Language regime - Vacancy notice for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union - Language requirements in the module for the online submission of applications - Alleged divergence with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 027/71)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, V. Čepaitė and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Vacancy Notice COM/2014/10356 for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (OJ 2014, C 185 A, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Republic of Lithuania is ordered to bear its own costs relating to its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case C-220/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications — Designation of the undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal service — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-220/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications - Designation of the undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal service - Incorrect transposition)
   (2008/C 209/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Shotter, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incorrect transposition [of Articles 8, 12 and 13] of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Obligation to use an efficient, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory mechanism to designate undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal service — National legislation immediately excluding economic operators which are not capable of ensuring the provision of that service throughout the national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by transposing into national law in the way it did the provisions concerning the designation of the undertakings capable of guaranteeing the provision of universal service, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(2), 12 and 13 and Annex IV of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’).

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-392/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — La Ferla v Commission and ECHA (REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Request for information — Power of the ECHA — Proportionality)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — La Ferla v Commission and ECHA
   (Case T-392/13) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Request for information - Power of the ECHA - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 402/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Leone La Ferla SpA (Melilli, Italy) (represented by: G. Passalacqua, J. Occhipinti and G. Calcerano, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents) and European Chemicals Agency (represented by: initially M. Heikkilä, A. Iber, E. Bigi, E. Maurage and J.-P. Trnka, then M. Heikkilä, E. Bigi, E. Maurage and J.-P. Trnka, acting as Agents, and by C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

      Re:

   In the first place, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of several Commission or ECHA measures, in the second place, application asking for the ECHA to be ordered to repay amounts which had been unduly received, and, in the third place, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking to obtain compensation for the harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the action in so far as it is brought against the European Commission, is dismissed as being inadmissible;

               2.

               Declares that the action, in so far as it is brought against the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), is dismissed as being inadmissible in part and unfounded in part;

               3.

               Orders Leone La Ferla SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 291, 5.10.2013.


title: Case T-464/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2009 — Korsch v OHIM (PharmaResearch) (Community trade mark — Application for the community word mark PharmaResearch — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/47

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2009 — Korsch v OHIM (PharmaResearch)
   (Case T-464/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the community word mark PharmaResearch - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)
   2009/C 180/86
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Korsch AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Grzam, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2007 (Case R 924/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign PharmaResearch as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Korsch AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.02.2008.


title: Case C-261/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2017 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 14 March 2017 in Case T-889/16, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/2

         Appeal brought on 15 May 2017 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 14 March 2017 in Case T-889/16, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-261/17 P)
   (2017/C 330/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Ccc Event Management GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union
   By order of 13 July 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-537/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the [copy and paste] by order of that Court of 19 December 2003 in the case brought by Katja Susanne Candolin, Jari-Antero Viljaniemi, Veli-Matti Paananen, Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola, and Jarno Kalervo Ruokoranta

text:
C 59/10               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.3.2004
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission                    22 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      brought by Katja Susanne Candolin, Jari-Antero Viljaniemi,
                             Belgium                                    Veli-Matti Paananen, Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola, and
                                                                        Jarno Kalervo Ruokoranta on the following questions:
                         (Case C-534/03)
                          (2004/C 59/16)                                1.    Does the requirement in Article 1 of the Third Directive
                                                                              90/232/EEC (1), under which all passengers other than
                                                                              the driver are to be compensated from insurance for
                                                                              personal injuries arising out of the use of a vehicle, or
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                          any other provision or principle of Community law lay
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                    down restrictions in assessing the significance of the
15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European                            passenger’s own contributory fault under national law, in
Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils,                         connection with his right to compensation payable from
acting as Agents.                                                             compulsory motor vehicle insurance?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        2.    Is it consistent with Community law, in any situation
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                 other than the cases mentioned in the second subpara-
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  graph of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive 84/5/EEC (2),
      Commission Directive 2002/35/EC (1) of 25 April 2002                    to exclude or limit, on the basis of the conduct of a
      concerning the setting up of a harmonised safety regime                 passenger in a vehicle, his right to obtain compensation
      for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, or, in             from compulsory motor vehicle insurance for road
      any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those                 accident damage? May that come into question, for
      measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its               example, when a person has entered a vehicle as a
      obligations under that directive;                                       passenger although he could have seen that the danger of
                                                                              an accident and of his suffering injury was greater than
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                          normal?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         3.    Does Community law preclude the driver’s intoxication,
                                                                              which influences his capability of driving the vehicle
                                                                              safely, from being regarded as such a factor to be taken
The period for implementation of the Directive expired on                     into account?
1 January 2003.
(1) OJ 2002 L 112, p. 21.                                               4.    Does Community law preclude the right of a car owner
                                                                              who is a passenger in the car to compensation for
                                                                              personal injury payable from compulsory motor vehicle
                                                                              insurance from being assessed more severely than that of
                                                                              other passengers on the ground that he permitted an
                                                                              intoxicated person to drive his car?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the [copy and paste]
by order of that Court of 19 December 2003 in the
case brought by Katja Susanne Candolin, Jari-Antero
                                                                        (1) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the
Viljaniemi, Veli-Matti Paananen, Vahinkovakuutusosake-                      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
        yhtiö Pohjola, and Jarno Kalervo Ruokoranta                         insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
                                                                            vehicles (OJ L 129 of 19.5.1990, p. 33).
                         (Case C-537/03)                                (2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
                                                                            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
                          (2004/C 59/17)                                    vehicles (OJ L 8 of 11.1.1984, p. 17).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the [copy and paste]
of 19 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on


title: Case T-678/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Sergio Siragusa against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016 in Case F-124/15, Siragusa v Council

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/55

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Sergio Siragusa against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016 in Case F-124/15, Siragusa v Council
   (Case T-678/16 P)
   (2016/C 419/72)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Sergio Siragusa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016, served on 14 July 2016, Siragusa v Council of the European Union (F-124/15);

               —

               Refer to the substance of the action and set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law.
   He is of the opinion that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the classification in law of the Council’s decision validating his early retirement of 11 July 2013. In consequence, he submits that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 November 2014 refusing his early retirement must be regarded as an adverse measure withdrawing the earlier decision accepting his early retirement and not as a mere decision confirming an implied rejection decision.
   The appellant submits, finally, that since the decision of 12 November 2014 was contested within the period prescribed for that purpose, the action brought at first instance is admissible and its merits must be examined.


title: Case T-123/08: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2010 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler) (Action for annulment — Applicant's failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/29

         Order of the General Court of 2 September 2010 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler)
   (Case T-123/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Applicant's failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 301/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Harald Spitzer (Hörsching, Austria) (represented by: T. H. Schmitz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Homeland Housewares LLC (Los Angeles, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1508/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Homeland Housewares LLC and Harald Spitzer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on this action;

               2.

               Mr Harald Spitzer is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.