title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-37/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Courts for the place of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of employment — Place where the employee habitually carries out his work — Definition — Work performed partly at an installation positioned over the continental shelf adjacent to a Contracting State and partly in the territory of another Contracting State)

text:
4.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/7
3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             1.    Sets aside points 2 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment
      Ireland, the Commission of the European Communities, the                  of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined
      Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the                Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 Boehringer v Council and
      Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) to bear            Commission;
      their own costs.
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Boehringer
                                                                                Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.                                                       against Commission Regulation No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996
                                                                                amending Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90
                                                                                laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of
                                                                                maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
                                                                                foodstuffs of animal origin;
                                                                          3.    Orders Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.
                                                                                Boehringer Sohn, both in the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-152/96 and in those before the Court
                                                                                of Justice, to bear their own costs and to pay the whole of the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;
                                                                          4.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear the costs
                        26 February 2002                                        which it has incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-152/96;
in Case C-32/00 P: Commission of the European Com-                        5.    Orders the Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa)
munities v Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH e.a. (1)                         and the Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
                                                                                to bear the costs which they have incurred both in the
                                                                                proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-152/96
(Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Partial annul-                        and in those before the Court of Justice.
ment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 in so far
as, in fixing the maximum residue limits for clenbuterol
chlorhydrate, it further specifies the permissible therapeutic            (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
indications for that substance — Possibility for the Com-
mission, in fixing the maximum residue limits of veterinary
medicinal products, to take into account Directive 96/22/EC
 concerning the prohibition on the use of certain substances)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (2002/C 109/10)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                27 February 2002
                                                                          in Case C-37/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                          the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Herbert Weber v
In Case C-32/00 P, Commission of the European Communities                                  Universal Ogden Services Ltd (1)
(agent: X. Lewis): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber)               (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Courts for the place
of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96                  of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
Boehringer v Council and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427,                   employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other                out his work — Definition — Work performed partly at an
parties to the proceedings being: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetme-             installation positioned over the continental shelf adjacent to
dica GmbH, C.H. Boehringer Sohn, established in Ingelheim                 a Contracting State and partly in the territory of another
am Rheim (Germany) (agents: D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard),                                        Contracting State)
Council of the European Union, Fédération européenne de la
Santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels (Belgium)                                             (2002/C 109/11)
(agents: A. Vandencasteele and D. Brinckman), Stichting
Kwaliteistsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), established in
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
La Haye (Netherlands) (agents: G. van der Wal and L. Parret)
and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),                                   in the European Court Reports)
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment               In Case C-37/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
on 26 February 2002, in which it:                                         3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/8                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              4.5.2002
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                         Failing other criteria, that will be the place where the employee
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                            has worked the longest.
by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                           It will only be otherwise if, in light of the facts of the case, the
court between Herbert Weber and Universal Ogden Services                            subject-matter of the dispute is more closely connected with a
Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the abovementioned                    different place of work, which would, in that case, be the
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as                          relevant place for the purposes of applying Article 5(1) of the
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the                                  convention.
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978                              In the event that the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice
L 304, p. 1 and — amended version — p. 77), by the                                  do not enable the national court to identify the habitual place
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the                               of work, as referred to in Article 5(1) of the convention, the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention                       employee will have the choice of suing his employer either in the
of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain                             courts for the place where the business which engaged him is
and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court                        situated, or in the courts of the Contracting State in whose
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the                           territory the employer is domiciled.
Chamber, N. Colneric, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporte-
ur) and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                    3.    National law applicable to the main dispute has no bearing on
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February                            the interpretation of the concept of the place where an employee
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                        habitually works, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the
                                                                                convention, to which the second question relates.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
1.    Work carried out by an employee on fixed or floating
      installations positioned on or above the part of the continental
      shelf adjacent to a Contracting State, in the context of the
      prospecting and/or exploitation of its natural resources, is to be
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      regarded as work carried out in the territory of that State for the
      purposes of applying Article 5(1) of the Convention of
      27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of                                          (Second Chamber)
      Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by
      the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
      Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                                              21 February 2002
      Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Convention of 25 Octo-
      ber 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and the              in Case C-65/00: Commission of the European Communi-
      Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
      of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environ-
                                                                              ment — Hazardous waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and
                                                                                91/689/EEC)
2.    Article 5(1) of that convention must be interpreted as meaning                                      (2002/C 109/12)
      that where an employee performs the obligations arising under
      his contract of employment in several Contracting States the                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
      place where he habitually works, within the meaning of that
      provision, is the place where, or from which, taking account of
      all the circumstances of the case, he in fact performs the essential    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      part of his duties vis-à-vis his employer.                                                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-65/00, Commission of the European Communities
      In the case of a contract of employment under which an                  (Agents: L. Ström and M.G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agent:
      employee performs for his employer the same activities in more          U. Leanza): Application for a declaration that, by exempting
      than one Contracting State, it is necessary, in principle, to take      undertakings and establishments which carry out hazardous
      account of the whole of the duration of the employment                  waste recovery operations covered by Council Directive
      relationship in order to identify the place where the employee          91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
      habitually works, within the meaning of Article 5(1).                   1991 L 377, p. 20) from the permit requirement laid down by


title: Case C-249/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2014 by Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal, L da against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-602/11: Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal, L da v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/2

         Appeal brought on 22 May 2014 by Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal, Lda against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-602/11: Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal, Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-249/14 P)
   2014/C 361/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal, Lda (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa, advogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 in Case T- 602/11;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment;

               —

               order the OHIM as defendant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs of the proceedings of the first instance and appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the Judgment under Appeal is flawed to the extent that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1). This plea in law comprises three parts and is based in three sets of arguments as follows:

               1.

               The General Court failed to properly substantiate the existence of a genuine likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. Finding a genuine likelihood of confusion between two trademarks properly and objectively cannot merely consist in affirming that, in the light of the identity of their respective goods, and in view of the very low visual similarity and the low degree of phonetic similarity that exists between them (and in spite of their conceptual dissimilarity), it cannot be ruled out that the relevant consumer may perceive their respective goods as originating from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings. ‘Likelihood of confusion’ does not mean a mere possibility of confusion but rather a probability that confusion will occur. A likelihood of confusion cannot be presumed just because there is some degree of similarity between two trademarks, even when their respective goods are identical.

               2.

               The Judgment under Appeal has also misapplied Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in so far as the General Court failed to take into account the impact and weight of the conceptual dissimilarity of the signs within the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion between trademarks presenting a very low degree of visual similarity and a low degree of aural similarity. According to established case law the conceptual content of the mark applied for should suffice to counteract the very low visual similarity and the low aural similarity that, according to the General Court, exists between the mark applied for and the earlier mark.

               3.

               Finally the General Court has misapplied Article 8(1)(b) CTMR by assessing the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the signs at stake without taking into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case for establishing the likelihood of confusion. More concretely, the General Court ignored a crucial circumstance that was part of the factual background of the proceedings: the origins, the history, the geographical meaning of the word included in the trademarks at stake in the proceedings and its symbolic connection with the goods designated by said marks. Consequently and to that extent, the General Court also distorted the factual background of the proceedings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-508/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Sidika Ucar v Land Berlin

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Sidika Ucar v Land Berlin
   (Case C-508/15)
   (2016/C 016/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sidika Ucar

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions governing application of that provision are also met in the case where the three years of legal residence of the member of the family of the Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force were preceded by a period in which the principal person entitled, after having been joined by the family member authorised to do so in accordance with that provision, was no longer duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State?

               2.

               Is the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that the extension of a residence permit is to be regarded as constituting the authorisation specified in that provision to join a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force in the case where the family member concerned has lived continuously, since being authorised to join the Turkish worker within the meaning of that provision, together with that person but the latter, following a period of temporary absence therefrom, is duly registered as belonging afresh to the labour force of the Member State only at the date on which the residence permit is extended?


title: Case C-267/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Domstolen by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren

text:
C 213/12                  EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.9.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                          24 June 1994, for a sports federation to apply to a professional
the Court should:                                                               sportsman of Russian nationality who is lawfully employed by
                                                                                a Spanish football club, as in the main proceedings, a rule
1.     declare that, by making the grant of a permanent                         which provides that clubs may use in competitions at national
       residence permit to nationals of the other Member States                 level only a limited number of players from countries outside
       referred to in Article 1(a), (c), (f), (h), (i) and (j) of Decree        the European Economic Area?
       No 94-221 of 11 March 1994 laying down the conditions
       of entry to, and residence in France applicable to nationals
       of Member States of the European Communities entitled
       to freedom of movement for persons subject to a
       condition of reciprocity, the French Republic has failed
       to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 EC;
2.     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Dom-
                                                                                stolen by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case
                                                                                of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren
The French legislation determining the conditions for issuing
permanent residence permits to nationals of Member States
and members of their family, makes the grant of those permits
                                                                                (Case C-267/03)
subject to a condition of reciprocity, namely the condition that
the applicant be a national of a Member State which issues
residence permits of permanent validity to French nationals
who have exercised their right to freedom of movement. Such                                             (2003/C 213/21)
a condition is manifestly contrary to Article 12 EC, read with
Articles 17, 18(1), 39 and 43 EC.
                                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen
                                                                                (Supreme Court) of 10 April 2003, received at the Court
                                                                                Registry on 18 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia                             of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren (public
Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo by order                        prosecutor) on the following questions of interpretation of
of that Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Igor Simutenkov                      Council Directive 83/189/EEC ( 1) (as amended by Directive 88/
against Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de                         182/EC (2) and by European Parliament and Council Directive
                     Fútbol and Ministerio Fiscal                               94/10/EC (3) in the light of the amendments to the Lottery Law
                                                                                which entered into force on 1 January 1997:
                            (Case C-265/03)
                                                                                1.    Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
                                                                                the use of a product constitute a technical regulation
                            (2003/C 213/20)
                                                                                which must be notified under the regulation?
                                                                                2.    Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                a service which affects the use of a product constitute a
European Communities by order of the Audiencia Nacional                               technical regulation which must be notified under the
(National High Court) Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo                           regulation?
(Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings) of
9 May 2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Igor Simutenkov against                 3.    Can the redefinition in national law of a service connected
Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de Fútbol and                            with the design of a product constitute a technical
Ministerio Fiscal on the following question:                                          regulation which must be notified under the directive, if
                                                                                the new definition affects the use of the product?
Is it contrary to Article 23 of the Agreement on partnership and
cooperation establishing a partnership between the European                     4.    What is the significance for the obligation to notify of
Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the                             factors such as the replacement of a licence requirement
Russian Federation, of the other part, concluded in Corfu on                          by a prohibition in national law, the greater or lesser
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 213/13
       value of the product/service, the size of the market for               a view to being transported subsequently by another road
       the product/service or the effect of a new national                    tractor to the consignee of the goods, who is established
       provision on use, which could be either a total prohibition            outside the customs territory of the Community?
       on use or prohibition or restriction within one of many
       possible areas of use?
                                                                              (1 ) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.
( 1) of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
     information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ
     L 109 of 26.04.1983, p. 8).
( 2) of 22 March 1988 amending Directive 83/189/EEC laying down
     a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
     technical standards and regulations (OJ L 81 of 26.03.1988,
     p. 75).
                                                                              Action brought on 25 June 2003 by the Commission
( 3) of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time
     Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision
                                                                              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
     of information in the field of technical standards and regulations                                      Republic
     (OJ L 100 of 19.04.1994, p. 30).
                                                                                (Case C-275/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/23)
                                                                              An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
                                                                              2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              represented by António Caeiros and Klaus Wiedner, acting as
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                       Agents.
hof by order of that Court of 13 May 2003 in the
proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and
Jens Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            Export-Import
                                                                              —     Declare that, by failing to transpose correctly and com-
                                                                                pletely Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December
                           (Case C-272/03)                                          1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                                public works contracts (1), the Portuguese Republic has
                           (2003/C 213/22)                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law;
                                                                              —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(Federal Finance Court) of 13 May 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 24 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and Jens                      Portuguese law as it stands makes the award of damages for
Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’ Export-                 infringements of Community law in the field of public
Import on the following question:                                             procurement or national rules implementing that law subject
                                                                              to proof, by the person harmed by the infringment, that the
                                                                              misconduct of the State or of the public body was culpably or
                                                                              maliciously intended by the relevant body or office holders or
Is Article 718(3)(d) in conjunction with Article 670(p) of                    administrative officials. Such evidence can be extremely diffi-
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning                 cult or impossible to produce. The difficulty or impossibility
that that regulation prohibits the use of a road tractor                      of producing such evidence may result in persons harmed by
registered outside the customs territory of the Community to                  an infringement not obtaining the compensation to which
transport a semi-trailer from a place within the customs                      they are entitled. It is therefore clear that that obligation, not
territory of the Community, where the semi-trailer is loaded                  provided for by Directive 89/665, on persons who have
with goods, to another place within the customs territory of                  suffered damage is likely to undermine the effectiveness of
the Community, where the semi-trailer is merely parked with                   Article 2(1)(c) of that directive.


title: Case C-226/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 May 2008 — Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 May 2008 — Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-226/08)
   (2008/C 209/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stadt Papenburg

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) allow a Member State to refuse to agree to the Commission's draft list of sites of Community importance, in relation to one or more sites, on grounds other than nature conservation grounds?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Do those grounds include the interests of municipalities and associations of municipalities, in particular their plans, planning intentions and other interests with regard to the further development of their area?

               3.

               If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative: Do the third recital in the preamble to Directive 92/43/EEC, Article 2(3) of the directive or other provisions of Community law even require that such grounds be taken into account by the Member States and the Commission when giving agreement and establishing the list of sites of Community importance?

               4.

               If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: Would it be possible — under Community law — for a municipality which is affected by the inclusion of a particular site in the list to claim in legal proceedings after final adoption of the list that the list infringes Community law, because its interests were not, or not sufficiently, taken into account?

               5.

               Must ongoing maintenance works in the navigable channels of estuaries, which were definitively authorised under national law before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition of Directive 92/43/EEC, undergo an assessment of their implications pursuant to Article 6(3) or (4) of the directive where they are continued after inclusion of the site in the list of sites of Community importance?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case T-361/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Genette v Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/14

         Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Genette v Commission
   (Case T-361/05)
   (2005/C 315/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Genette (Gorze, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Head of the ‘Pensions’ Unit of 25 January 2005 rejecting the applicant's application of 31 October 2004 for the transfer of his pension rights acquired in Belgium (No D/1106/2004);

               —

               annul the decision of the Director General of the ADMIN DG of 10 June 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint of 22 April 2005 against the decision of the Head of the ‘Pensions’ Unit of 2 February 2005 rejecting his application of 31 October 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following an application by the applicant, a Commission official, the pension rights he had acquired in Belgium were transferred to the Community scheme in 2002, in accordance with the provisions of a Belgian law on that subject adopted in 1991. In 2003, Belgium adopted a new law governing those transfers, whose provisions, according to the applicant, were more advantageous for him.
   The 1991 law provided for the possibility to withdraw the transfer application, with the institution's agreement. The applicant therefore submitted an application for the Commission to record its agreement on the withdrawal of the application he had submitted under the regime governed by the 1991 law, so that he might, subsequently, submit a new application governed by the 2003 law. That application was rejected by the contested decision, on the ground that the Community provisions do not provide for the possibility to withdraw an application.
   By his action, the applicant challenges the rejection of his application. He points out a number of obvious errors in the assessment of the subject of his application, the final nature of the decisions called into question by his application, the existence of new and substantial facts and the time-limit for submitting the application. He also alleges infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and of the general provisions for its implementation. In addition, the applicant submits that the contested decisions infringe his fundamental right to effective judicial protection and the duty of assistance laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
   Lastly, the applicant pleads that the Belgian law of 1991 conflicts with Community law, specifically Article 11(2) of Annex VIII and the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case C-32/04: Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
20.3.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 71/13
The Commission claims that the agreement of 15 September                 Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
1999 to transfer the responsibility for the collection and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
treatment of waste from the municipality of Mödling to
AbfallGmbH does not fall to be classified as an ‘internal                                           (Case C-32/04)
transfer’ within the administration of the municipality of
Mödling, as the municipality of Mödling ceased to exercise the
control over AbfallGmbH that it would have over its own                                             (2004/C 71/21)
departments. The transfer of responsibility for the carrying out
of public services accordingly involves a public service contract
which was subject to the compulsory tender procedure.                    An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
                                                                         2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                         represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission                      —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                              Spain                                            Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001
                                                                               amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC
                         (Case C-31/04)                                        defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for
                                                                               the system of specific information relating to dangerous
                         (2004/C 71/20)                                        preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European
                                                                               Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relat-
                                                                               ing to dangerous substances in implementation of
                                                                               Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      sheets) (1), or, in any event, by failing to inform the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Janu-                   Commission thereof, the French Republic has failed to
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        fulfil its obligations under that directive;
represented by K. Banks and F. Castillo de la Torre, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, with an address for service in               —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 July
      Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of             2002.
      the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
      certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
                                                                         (1) OJ 2001 L 212, p. 24.
      information society (1), or in any event by failing to
      communicate those provisions to the Commission, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 13 of that directive.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    of Luxembourg
The period prescribed by the Directive for its transposition                                         Case C-33/04
into national law expired on 22 December 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/22)
(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-36/17: Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/31

         Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB)
   (Case T-36/17)
   (2017/C 070/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Forest Pharma BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Holman, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ipsen Pharma SAS (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘COLINEB’ — Application for registration No 13 191 671

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2016 in Case R 500/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-544/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Public health — Consumer information and protection — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Concepts of ‘nutrition claims’ and ‘health claims’ — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Description of a wine as ‘easily digestible’ — Reference to reduced acidity levels — Beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol — Prohibition of health claims — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15(1) — Freedom to choose an occupation — Article 16 — Freedom to conduct a business — Compatibility)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/3

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
      (Case C-544/10) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Public health - Consumer information and protection - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Concepts of ‘nutrition claims’ and ‘health claims’ - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Description of a wine as ‘easily digestible’ - Reference to reduced acidity levels - Beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol - Prohibition of health claims - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15(1) - Freedom to choose an occupation - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - Compatibility)
      (2012/C 331/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Deutsches Weintor eG

         Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU in conjunction with Articles 15(1) and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of Article 4(3) in conjunction with Articles 2(2)(5) or 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 (OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16) — Description of a wine as easily digestible with a reference to reduced acidity — Prohibition of health claims made in relation to beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol — Meaning of ‘health claims’

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘health claim’ cover a description such as ‘easily digestible’ that is accompanied by a reference to the reduced content of substances frequently perceived by consumers as being harmful.

                  2.

                  The fact that a producer or distributor of wine is prohibited under Regulation No 1924/2006, as amended by Regulation No 116/2010, without exception, from using a claim of the kind at issue in the main proceedings, even if that claim is inherently correct, is compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 8 February 1996 in the administrative-law case of Gut Springenheide GmbH and Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt - Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung, Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, intervening (Case C-210/96)

text:
 No C 247/8              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 8 . 96
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                         Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
 Pursuant to Article 189 of the Treaty, a directive is binding,          8 February 1996 in the administrative-law case of Gut
 as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to              Springenheide        GmbH          and       Rudolf Tusky       v.
 which it is addressed. According to established case-law,               Oberkreisdirektor      des      Kreises  Steinfurt  — Amt      für
that provision places Member States under an obligation to               Lebensmittelüberwachung,              Oberbundesanwalt     beim
 bring their legislation into conformity with directives within                      Bundesverwaltungsgericht, intervening
 the period prescribed therein .                                                                  ( Case C-2 10/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/ 15 )
 By not adopting within the prescribed period the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
comply with Council Directive 76/207/EEC , concerning the
                                                                         of the European Communities by order of the
principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards                Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court )
working conditions, and by maintaining in force within its
                                                                         — Third Chamber — of 8 February 1996 , which was
own legal system rules prohibiting night-work for women ,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 20 June 1 996 , for a
contrary to Article 5 of that Directive, the Italian Republic
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Gut Springenheide GmbH
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
                                                                         and Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
                                                                         Steinfurt — Amt fur Lebensmitteliiberwachung ( Chief
(') O J No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                               Administrative Officer of the Rural District of Steinfurt —
                                                                         Office for Supervision of Foodstuffs ), Chief Federal
                                                                         Prosecutor attached to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht,
                                                                         intervening, on the following questions :
                                                                         1 . For the purposes of making the requisite determination
                                                                             pursuant to Article 10 ( 2 ) ( e ) of Regulation ( EEC )
Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the                      No 1 907/90 ( 1 ) whether statements designed to promote
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                        sales are likely to mislead the purchaser, is the actual
                          ( Case C-208/96 )                                  expectation of the consumers addressed to be
                                                                             determined or is the aforesaid provision based on the
                            ( 96/C 247/ 14 )
                                                                             criterion of an objectified concept of a purchaser which
                                                                             is to be the subject of a legal interpretation only ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              2.   In the event that the matter turns on consumers ' actual
 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                              expectations, the following questions arise :
Communities , represented by Hubert van Vliet, of its Legal                  ( a ) Is the view of the informed average consumer or
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                           that of the casual consumer determinative ?
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz , of the
Legal Service of the Commission of the European                              ( b ) Can the proportion of consumers necessary in order
Communities, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                            to establish a determinative expectation on the part
                                                                                of consumers be established in percentage terms ?
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             3.  In the event that the matter turns on the criterion of an
                                                                             objectified concept of a purchaser which can be the
 1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period                   subject of a legal interpretation only, the question arises
       to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative                     as to how that concept is to be determined .
       measures necessary in order to comply with Council
       Directive    92/ 119/EEC        of  17   December     1992        (') O J No L 173 , 1990 , p . 5 .
       introducing general Community measures for the
       control of certain animal diseases and specific measures
       relating to swine vesicular disease ('), the Kingdom of
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
       Treaty;
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Uudenmaan
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                     Laaninoikeus by order of that court of 30 May 1996 in the
                                                                                proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy
                                                                                ( Case C-213 /96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
in Case C-205/96 ( 2 ); the time-limit for transposition                                            ( 96/C 247/ 16 )
expired on 1 October 19 93 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Uudenmaan
(') OJ No I. 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 69 .
( 2 ) See page 7 of the Official Journal .                               Laaninoikeus ( Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court ) of
                                                                        30 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        25 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                         brought by Outokumpu Oy on the following questions :


title: Case C-446/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 16 July 2003, in the case of Marks & Spencer plc against David Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes)

text:
C 304/18                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         13.12.2003
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: must                      —     the Member State of the parent company:
      refusal to accept the document be deemed to have the
      effect in law of rendering the service inoperative in its
      entirety?                                                                       —     subjects a company resident within its territory
                                                                                to corporation tax on its total profits, including
                                                                                the profits of branches in other Member States,
3.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:                                    with arrangements for the availability of double
                                                                                taxation relief for those taxes incurred in
      (a)   Within what period of time and in what manner                                   another Member State and under which branch
            must the translation be brought to the attention of                             losses are taken account of in those taxable
            the addressee? Must notification of the translation                             profits;
            satisfy the conditions which the Regulation imposes
            on the service of documents or can the manner of
            dispatch be freely determined?                                            —     does not subject the undistributed profits of
                                                                                subsidiaries resident in other Member States to
                                                                                corporation tax;
      (b) Does national procedural law apply in respect of the
            possibility of rectifying the failure?
                                                                                —     subjects the parent company to corporation
                                                                                tax on any distributions to it by way of dividend
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the                              by the subsidiaries resident in other Member
    service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial docu-                        States while not subjecting the parent company
    ments in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37).                            to corporation tax on distributions by way of
                                                                                dividend by subsidiary companies resident in
                                                                                the State of the parent;
                                                                                —     grants double taxation relief to the parent
                                                                                company by way of a credit in respect of
                                                                                withholding tax on dividends and foreign taxes
                                                                                paid on the profits in respect of which divi-
                                                                                dends are paid by subsidiary companies resi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                                     dent in other Member States;
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
of that court dated 16 July 2003, in the case of Marks &
Spencer plc against David Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes)                        is there a restriction under Article 43 EC, in conjunction
                                                                                with Article 48 EC? If so, is it justified under Community
                                                                                law?
                         (Case C-446/03)
                                                                           2.   (a)   What difference, if any, does it make to the answer
                         (2003/C 304/27)                                              to Question 1 that, depending on the law of the
                                                                                Member State of the subsidiary, it is or may be
                                                                                possible in certain circumstances to obtain relief for
                                                                                some or all of the losses incurred by the subsidiary
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                against taxable profits in the State of the subsidiary?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 16 July                     (b) If it does make a difference, what significance, if any,
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 October                          is to be attached to the fact that:
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marks & Spencer
plc and David Halsey (HM Inspector of Taxes) on the following
questions:                                                                            —     a subsidiary resident in another Member State
                                                                                has now ceased trading and, although there is
1.    In circumstances where:                                                               provision for loss relief subject to certain
                                                                                conditions in that State, there is no evidence
                                                                                that in the circumstances such relief was
      —     provisions of a Member State, such as the UK                                    obtained;
            provisions on group relief, prevent a parent com-
            pany which is resident for tax purposes in that State
            from reducing its taxable profits in that State by                        —     a subsidiary resident in another Member State
            setting off losses incurred in other Member States                              has been sold to a third party and, although
            by subsidiary companies which are resident for tax                              there is provision under the law of that State
            purposes in those States, where such set off would                              for the losses to be used under certain con-
            be possible if the losses were incurred by subsidiary                           ditions by a third party purchaser, it is uncertain
            companies resident in the State of the parent                                   whether they were so used in the circumstances
            company;                                                                        of the case;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 304/19
            —    the arrangements under which the Member                 (2)     Breach of the EA Treaty:
                 State of the parent company takes account of
                 the losses of UK resident companies apply
                 regardless of whether the losses are also relieved      —     Article 42 EA: under the procedure established by the
                 in another Member State?                                      contested regulation, the Commission de facto alters the
                                                                               three-month period laid down by this provision of the
      (c)   Would it make any difference if there were evidence                EA Treaty, which the Council alone had the power to
            that relief had been obtained for the losses in the                alter.
            Member State in which the subsidiary was resident
            and, if so, would it matter that the relief was
            obtained subsequently by an unrelated group of               —     Article 43 EA: in adopting the contested regulation, the
            companies to which the subsidiary was sold?                        Commission exceeded the powers conferred upon it by
                                                                               this provision. The Commission has established, by
                                                                               means of an instrument of general application that is
                                                                               mandatory in its entirety and directly applicable in
                                                                               every Member State, a procedure truly entailing detailed
                                                                               examination of investment projects, which is quasi-
                                                                               suspensory in nature.
                                                                         —     Article 44 EA: under the contested regulation, publication
Action brought on 29 October 2003 (fax 24.10.2003) by
                                                                               of investment projects communicated to the Commission
the French Republic against the Commission of the
                                                                               becomes mandatory and automatic in nature, whereas it
                     European Communities
                                                                               is merely optional under this article. Nor does the
                                                                               contested regulation specify that such publication may
                         (Case C-455/03)                                       occur only with the prior consent of the Member States,
                                                                               persons and undertakings concerned.
                         (2003/C 304/28)
                                                                         —     The first subparagraph of Article 194(1) EA: the Com-
                                                                               mission has failed to have regard to the obligation of
                                                                               confidentiality contained in the first subparagraph of
                                                                               Article 194(1) EA by allowing third party access to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      investment projects notified by the persons and under-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   takings concerned, when those projects contain confiden-
Communities on 29 October 2003 (fax 24.10.2003) by the                         tial information that is covered in particular by the trade
French Republic, represented by F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues                     secrecy of those persons and undertakings.
and C. Lemaire, acting as Agents, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.
                                                                         (3) Breach of the principle of legal certainty: under the
The French Republic claims that the Court should:                        contested regulation, the persons or undertakings concerned
                                                                         are ‘recommended’ not to put the investment project into
—     annul Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 1352/2003                 effect before the Commission has issued its recommendation
      of 23 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1209/                  on that project or it is deemed to be in compliance with the
      2000 determining procedures for effecting the communi-             objectives and provisions of the EA Treaty. The Commission
      cations prescribed under Article 41 of the Treaty estab-           also fails to have regard to the requirement for legal certainty
      lishing the European Atomic Energy Community (1);                  by providing that, where the Commission has opened a
                                                                         detailed examination procedure, it ‘shall as far as possible
                                                                         endeavour’ to adopt a recommendation within a period of six
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             months. The persons or undertakings concerned do not
                                                                         know within what period the Commission will adopt its
                                                                         recommendation should a detailed examination procedure be
                                                                         opened.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 15.
(1) The Commission lacks competence to adopt the contest-
ed regulation: neither Articles 41 EA to 44 EA nor Council
Regulation (Euratom) No 2587/1999, which are the legal
bases cited by the Commission in the contested regulation,
constitute a legal basis enabling it to adopt that regulation.


title: Case C-462/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis

text:
C 70/2                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
(Federal Social Court) of 30 October 2002, received at the             2.    Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary                        exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
ruling in the case of Karin Bautz against AOK (Allgemeine                    388/EEC?
Ortskrankenkasse — General Local Health Insurance Fund)
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
1.   Is it compatible with the provisions of Articles 49 and 50
     EC for a Member State which has organised its sickness
     insurance system in accordance with the principle of
     benefits in kind, and which provides outpatient medical
     care through authorised medical practitioners, to permit
     the reimbursement of the cost of consulting unauthorised          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
     medical practitioners — also where treatment is provided          gericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 December
     in another Member State — only if treatment correspond-           2002 in the administrative-law proceedings between Inan
     ing to the generally accepted state of medical knowledge                     Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg
     is not available under the system of benefits in kind?
                                                                                (Case C-467/02)
2.   If this is deemed to be an inadmissible impediment to the
     freedom to provide services, do the aforementioned                                          (2003/C 70/05)
     provisions of the EC Treaty permit German law to make
     the reimbursement of the cost of privately obtained
     medical services conditional — except in emergencies —
     on a prior application being made for a decision by the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sickness insurance fund as to entitlement to extra-               European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
     contractual treatment?                                            Stuttgart (Administrative Court) of 19 December 2002,
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2002, for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the administrative-law proceedings
                                                                       between Inan Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg on the
                                                                       following questions:
                                                                       1.    Does a child born in Germany to a Turkish worker who
                                                                             belongs to the regular labour force fall within the scope
                                                                             of Article 7(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                             Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                      development of the Association (‘Decision No 1/80’)
hof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the                         where from his birth to at least the time he attained the
  case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis                      age of majority his residence was permitted initially solely
                                                                             for the reason of family unity or, where his residence
                                                                             permit was temporary, was not terminated solely for that
                        (Case C-462/02)                                      reason?
                                                                       2.    Is Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 the only basis upon
                         (2003/C 70/04)                                      which the right of a family member to access to the
                                                                             employment market and to an extension of residence
                                                                             under the second indent of Article 7(1) may be limited?
                                                                       3.    Does the imposition of three years’ juvenile sentence
                                                                             constitute the definitive removal of the person concerned
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             from the labour force such that he loses his rights under
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                             the second indent of Article 7(1) even if there is a real
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
                                                                             possibility that only part of the sentence will require to
Court Registry on 23 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             be served, albeit that if released early on licence the
in the case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis
                                                                             person will be required to submit to treatment for drug
on the following questions:
                                                                             abuse and during the period of that treatment will not be
                                                                             available for employment on the market?
1.   Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC ( 1) prohibit
     a Member State from making the organisation of a card             4.    Where it results from a short period of imprisonment
     game subject to value added tax solely if the organisation              which is not suspended for probation, does the loss of a
     of a card game by a licensed public casino is exempt, or                job or, where the person concerned is unemployed, the
     must card games organised outside casinos also be                       impossibility of applying for a job constitute voluntary
     comparable for that purpose in essential respects, for                  unemployment within the meaning of the second sen-
     example as regards the game rules, the maximum stake                    tence of Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 and therefore
     and the maximum winnings, with card games in the                        not prevent the loss of the rights conferred by Article 6(1)
     casinos?                                                                and Article 7(1) of Decision No 1/80?


title: Case T-434/13: Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Doux v Commission

text:
               5.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/4

         Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Doux v Commission
   (Case T-434/13)
   2013/C 291/05
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Doux SA (Châteaulin, France) (represented by: J. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the contested regulation does not contain any statement of reasons. The applicant claims that the statement of reasons mentioned in the contested regulation is merely a standard statement of reasons which does not make it possible to follow the reasoning of the Commission, whereas the Commission should have indicated very specifically the considerations justifying moving from a refund of EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0, particularly because it is breaking from its previous decision-making practice.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations since the Commission had assured operators that the refunds would be maintained until the entry into force of the new common agricultural policy. The applicant claims that the reduction in the refund from EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0 was not foreseeable in the light of the situation in the poultry market.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission took the view that economic indicators justified setting the amount of refund at EUR 0 although the increase in market price will be mostly absorbed by the rise of the Euro against the Dollar. The applicant is thus of the opinion that economic indicators do not justify refunds being abolished.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission held that it would be appropriate for the contested regulation to enter into force immediately ‘in order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management’. The applicant submits that that statement of reasons, which is identical to that of preceding regulations, is particularly inadequate in the present case since the sudden removal of export refunds without prior notice, which would have permitted adaptation of the economic model of operators, could instead lead to internal market disruption.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission, since it did not adopt the contested regulation on a ground provided for in Regulation No 1234/2007. (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).


title: Case T-490/12: Action brought on 6 November 2012 — Mondadori Editore v OHIM — Grazia Equity (GRAZIA)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/55

         Action brought on 6 November 2012 — Mondadori Editore v OHIM — Grazia Equity (GRAZIA)
   (Case T-490/12)
   2013/C 26/112
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Dragotti and R. Valenti, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grazia Equity GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 1958/2010-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GRAZIA’, for services in classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 6840466

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trade mark registration No 906507 of the figurative mark ‘GRAZIA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 16, 18, 25 and 38; Community trade mark registration No 1714146 of the figurative mark ‘GRAZIA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 38; Italian trade mark registration No 1049965 of the word mark ‘GRAZIA’, for goods in class 16; Italian trade mark registration No 1050165 and International trade mark registrations No 276829, No 276833 and No 817006 for the above marks, for goods and services in classes 9, 16 or 38

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-495/04: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  30 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) — A.C. Smits-Koolhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Directive 95/59 — Tax on the consumption of manufactured tobacco — Herbal cigarettes — Used exclusively for medical purposes)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) — A.C. Smits-Koolhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-495/04) (1)

   (Directive 95/59 - Tax on the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Herbal cigarettes - Used exclusively for medical purposes)
   (2006/C 143/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A.C. Smits-Koolhoven

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Art. 7(2) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40 — Medicinal cigarettes — Exclusively medical purpose — Therapeutic or prophylactic purposes
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 7(2) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that cigarettes without tobacco which do not contain substances having a medical effect but which are presented and marketed as an aid to giving up smoking are not ‘used exclusively for medical purposes’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Case T-428/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2013 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v OHIM (VALORES DE FUTURO) (Community trade mark — Application for community word mark VALORES DE FUTURO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2013 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v OHIM (VALORES DE FUTURO)
   (Case T-428/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for community word mark VALORES DE FUTURO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 24/36
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2012 (Case R 2299/2011-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign VALORES DE FUTURO as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case C-293/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Sharda Europe, B.V.B.A. v Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro, S.A.

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Sharda Europe, B.V.B.A. v Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro, S.A.
   (Case C-293/16)
   (2016/C 305/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Cuarta

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sharda Europe, B.V.B.A.

      Respondents: Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               As there is divergence between the different language versions of Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC (1) of 1 July 2008 and a possible discrepancy with Recital 7 of the preamble to the Directive, the following question is referred to the Court of Justice:
               Is the date 31 December 2008 in Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008, in its Spanish version, to be understood as the expiry of the deadline for the Member States to carry out a re-evaluation, or as the final date for inclusion in the list in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) of the active substances which must be re-evaluated, or as the final day for submitting the corresponding application for inclusion?

               2.

               Is the expression ‘by 31 December 2008 at the latest’ in Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/69/EC a fixed deadline on account of the aim pursued by the system established by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991, and does it preclude the Member States from extending it, with the result that it is calculated according to that directive?

               3.

               If it is understood that the deadline may be extended, may it be extended for objective reasons of force majeure or may the Member States, to which the mandate in Article 3 is addressed, extend it in accordance with the conditions and requirements of their national legislation?

      (1)  Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clofentezine, dicamba, difenoconazole, diflubenzuron, imazaquin, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen as active substances.

      OJ 2008 L 172, p. 9.

      (2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

      OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.


               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/5

         Taking of the oath by a new Member of the General Court
   2010/C 317/09
   Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court of the European Union for the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2016 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 8 July 2010, (1) Mr van der Woude took the oath before the Court of Justice on 13 September 2010.

      (1)  OJ L 186 of 20.7.2010.


title: Case C-287/04: Action brought on 5 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/26

         Action brought on 5 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-287/04)
   (2004/C 228/53)
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to implement Articles 3, 6 and 8 of Council Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Swedish legislation does not guarantee, as required under Article 3 of the directive, a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period. The fact that the majority of workers are covered by collective agreements which governed those questions does not affect the obligation to implement that provision in respect of all workers.
   As regards Article 6 of the directive, the normal reference period of four months laid down in Article 16(2) for the application of Article 6 may not, under Article 17(4), be extended to more than six months. The scope of the possible derogation as regards the reference period is less than that provided for by the Swedish legislation.
   Article 8 of the directive has not been expressly incorporated in the Swedish legislation.

      (1)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.


title: Case T-100/01: Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 227/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11.8.2001
Grounds of claim:             — Misapplication of Article               the applicant was allocated a post which in her view is
                                   8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)           considerably less important and offers considerably fewer
                                   No 40/94 (1) (likelihood of          promotion prospects. According to the applicant, if the
                                   confusion)                           principles laid down in Article 141 EC had been implemented
                              — the opposing signs are sub-             in due time and in full, she ought to have obtained the post of
                                   stantially different typo-           principal departmental manager for ‘Personnel and Adminis-
                                   graphically, conceptually and        tration’. She submits that she has thereby suffered substantial
                                   in their sound, and the rel-         material and non-material harm and that, in her case, her
                                   evant goods are dissimilar.          employer has since 1994 committed all breaches of fundamen-
                                                                        tal and human rights, without legal consequences, on the basis
                                                                        of the employer’s ‘organisational freedom’.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        She contends that, when requests are made before national
                                                                        courts for an order for reference under Article 234 EC, a
                                                                        hearing in accordance with the law is refused. All the judicial
                                                                        proceedings brought by the applicant in respect of European
                                                                        fundamental rights have terminated at first instance since leave
                                                                        to appeal has likewise been refused. Her constitutional appeals
                                                                        have not been accepted for determination, without any reasons
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber                       being given. In the applicant’s submission, there has been no
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    review of the breaches of fundamental rights arising from the
                                                                        Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental
                                                                        Rights of the European Union.
                         (Case T-100/01)
                         (2001/C 227/43)
                                                                        The applicant contends that the material legal provisions in
                  (Language of the Case: German)                        the Federal Republic of Germany require proof of individual
                                                                        fault on the part of the civil servant acting as a precondition for
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               claims for damages against public authorities. Compensation is
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              therefore not payable to civil servants without proof of special
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber,                damage in the case of breaches of fundamental rights arising
Osterhofen (Germany), represented by Christoph Blecken-                 from the Treaty on European Union.
wegner, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to         She relies on Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty on European
      the second and third paragraphs of the EC Treaty, in              Union, in conjunction with the Social Charter and the Charter
      conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 232 of            of Fundamental Rights, and on provisions of Council Directive
      the Treaty of Amsterdam, by supervising incorrectly the           75/117, and submits that the Commission has not complied
      implementation and application of European legal rules            with its obligation to monitor implementation of Union law
      into German national law;                                         and of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in
                                                                        national German law. The Commission did not act when called
—     declare that the Commission has failed to define its              on to do so by the applicant pursuant to Article 232 EC and
      position on the substance of her call on it to act pursuant       has not responded to the substance of her complaint.
      to the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty, in
      conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 232 of
      the Treaty of Amsterdam;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        She pleads various situations as examples of infringements of
                                                                        fundamental rights and discrimination at the workplace, as
                                                                        well as of discrimination against women.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant has worked since 1986 as a federal civil servant
in the Straßenneubauamt (New Highway Construction Office)
Bad Kreuznach in the service of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz. In
1994 that office was amalgamated with the Straßenneubauver-
waltung (New Highway Construction Administration) Bad
Kreuznach and, on the allocation of posts in the new office,