               25.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 334/35

         Action brought on 25 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-17/14)
   (2014/C 334/16)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 25 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by maintaining in force national rules such as Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provision in the Act on the repeal of the Health Act, including the applicability of Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Health Act in those respects, which require that an authorised ‘Dentist’ has to pursue his profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               Article 63 of the Liechtenstein Health Act provides that a ‘Dentist’ can only work under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (Zahnarzt).

               —

               The right of establishment guaranteed under Article 31 EEA requires there to be no restrictions on the freedom of establishment, including the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 EEA. In its view, Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provisions in the Act on the repeal of the Health Act, including the applicability of Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Health Act in those respects, amounts to a restriction under Article 31 EEA.

               —

               The Liechtenstein government argues that the objective of Article 63 of the Health Act is to secure the protection of public health.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority holds that it goes beyond what is necessary to attain the protection of public health that a fully trained and qualified ‘Dentist’, wishing to pursue his professional activity in accordance with his obtained diploma, has to be employed by a dental practitioner in Liechtenstein.


title: Case C-226/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/18/EC — Public procurement procedures — Award of a contract for interpretation and translation services — Services falling within the ambit of Annex II B of the Directive — Services not subject to all the requirements of the Directive — Weighting of the award criteria determined after tenders have been submitted — Weighting altered following an initial review of the tenders submitted — Compliance with the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-226/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public procurement procedures - Award of a contract for interpretation and translation services - Services falling within the ambit of Annex II B of the Directive - Services not subject to all the requirements of the Directive - Weighting of the award criteria determined after tenders have been submitted - Weighting altered following an initial review of the tenders submitted - Compliance with the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency)
   2011/C 13/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, and A.M. Collins, SC)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public procurement procedures — Award of a contract for interpretation and translation services — Services not subject to all the requirements of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Weighting of the award criteria after the submission of tenders — Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by altering the weighting of the award criteria for a contract for the provision of interpretation and translation services following an initial review of the tenders submitted, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principle of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.09.2009.


title: Case F-40/06: Action brought on  8 April 2006  — Luigi Mancuccio v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/37

         Action brought on 8 April 2006 — Luigi Mancuccio v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-40/06)
   (2006/C 143/72)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Mancuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: V. Messa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the implied decision by which the applicant's request dated 1 March 2005 to the Appointing Authority to have sent to him a certified copy of the original of the bill of lading relating to the presumed dispatching of his personal effects from Angola to Italy;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of damages for the losses resulting from the adoption of the contested act, the amount of EUR 10 000, or an amount to be assessed by the Court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former Commission official who took retirement on 30 May 2005, requested from that institution the bill of lading for his personal effects and property assigned to his residence in Angola, the country to which he had been assigned as an economic advisor with the Commission's delegation.
   In May 2003, the defendant was arranging for the removal from the official lodgings assigned to the applicant, who maintains that only part of his personal effects were collected for removal. By memorandum of 16 May 2005, the defendant informed the applicant that his personal effects and his automobile had been sent to Italy and asked him to contact the shipping agent to arrange for delivery.
   By letter of 1 March 2005, the applicant requested, inter alia, a detailed list of what had been delivered to him, and also a copy of the bill of lading. That request was not answered, as indicated in the claim brought by the applicant on 2 September 2005.
   In support of his action, the applicant states that the implied decision to reject his claim is illegitimate on grounds of absolute failure to state reasons, infringement of the law, infringement of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials, the principle of transparency, the principle of sound administration, and also the principle of neminem laedere.


title: Case T-694/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Micula/Commission

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/69

         Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Micula/Commission
   (Case T-694/15)
   (2016/C 038/93)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ioan Micula (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania [Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112)] (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43);

               —

               alternatively, annul the contested decision insofar as it (a) concerns the applicant, (b) prevents Romania from complying with the award, (c) orders Romania to recover any incompatible aid, (d) orders that the applicant shall be jointly liable to repay aid received by any of the entities identified in Article 2(2) of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in failing to properly apply Article 351 TFEU and general principles of law to the present case.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question conferred an advantage on the applicant, specifically in incorrectly assessing the time at which the alleged advantage was granted, or alternatively in finding that the payment of damages constitutes an advantage.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question was imputable to the Romanian State.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly assessed the compatibility of the alleged aid measure.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly identified the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, and failed to state reasons for its conclusion, specifically in identifying the natural or legal persons comprising the alleged beneficiary undertaking.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law and exceeded its competence in ordering recovery of the alleged aid.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to observe essential procedural requirements, specifically the right to be heard, Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 83, p. 1 (as amended).


title: Joined Cases C-256/10 and C-261/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla León (Spain)) — David Barcenilla Fernández (C-256/10), Pedro Antonio Macedo Lozano (C-261/10) v Gerardo García, S.L. (Directive 2003/10/EC — Exposure values — Noise — Hearing protection — Effectiveness)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla León (Spain)) — David Barcenilla Fernández (C-256/10), Pedro Antonio Macedo Lozano (C-261/10) v Gerardo García, S.L.
   (Joined Cases C-256/10 and C-261/10) (1)

   (Directive 2003/10/EC - Exposure values - Noise - Hearing protection - Effectiveness)
   2011/C 204/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla León

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: David Barcenilla Fernández (C-256/10), Pedro Antonio Macedo Lozano (C-261/10)

      Defendant: Gerardo García, S.L.

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Interpretation of Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) (Seventeenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 2003 L 42, p. 38) — Exceeding noise exposure action values aimed at avoiding or reducing exposure — Effectiveness of the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) (Seventeenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), as amended by Directive 2007/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer in a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dB(A), measured without taking account of the effect of individual hearing protectors, fails to fulfil the obligations resulting from that Directive by simply providing the workers with such hearing protectors so that the daily noise exposure level is reduced to less than 80 dB(A), as that employer is obliged to implement a programme of technical or organisational measures intended to reduce such noise exposure to a level of less than 85 dB(A), measured without taking into account the effect of the individual hearing protectors.

               2.

               Directive 2003/10, as amended by Directive 2007/30, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require an employer to make an extra payment to workers who are exposed to a noise level above 85 dB(A), measured without taking into account the effect of the individual hearing protectors on the sole ground that it has not implemented a programme of technical or organisational measures intended to reduce the daily noise exposure level. However, national law must provide appropriate mechanisms to ensure that a worker who is exposed to a noise level above 85 dB(A), measured without taking into account the effect of the individual hearing protectors, can require the employer to comply with the preventive obligations set out in Article 5(2) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case T-345/99: Action brought on 2 December 1999 by Harbinger Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
4.3.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/29
Action brought on 26 November 1999 by V.O.F. Achten                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         — annul the Commission’s decision refusing to annul, on
                                                                             account of sickness, the annual leave taken by the applicant
                        (Case T-339/99)                                      from 4 August 1988 to 1 September 1988;
                         (2000/C 63/57)                                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         The applicant contests the Commission’s decision refusing to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                allow him to recoup all of the days of leave corresponding to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               the period covered by the medical certificates produced by
European Communities on 26 November 1999 by                              him to prove that he was absent on account of sickness whilst
V.O.F. Achten, of Arcen (Netherlands), represented by                    he was on leave.
M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.
                                                                         He asserts, first, that the Commission challenged the medical
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              certificates produced without undertaking a medical examin-
                                                                         ation to check the validity of each of them, thereby disregarding
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)             the provisions of Article 59(1) and (3) of the Staff Regulations
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                  of officials.
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;                                                             He further considers that the Commission has failed to comply
                                                                         with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons and to
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                               observe the principle of the right to a fair hearing, inasmuch
                                                                         as it has provided no medical information enabling the
                                                                         applicant or his doctor to understand and, where appropriate,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          to rebut the reasons which prompted the institution’s medical
                                                                         officer to challenge the certificate of 4 August 1998, which
                                                                         was the only one in respect of which a medical examination
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases             was carried out to check its validity.
T-273/99 to T-278/99.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         Action brought on 2 December 1999 by Harbinger
                                                                         Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-345/99)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Francisco Javier
Rémon Galar against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (2000/C 63/59)
                          Communities
                        (Case T-341/99)                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                         (2000/C 63/58)                                  An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                         Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities on 2 December 1999 by
                                                                         Harbinger Corporation, a corporation having its registered
                   (Language of the case: French)                        office in the USA, represented by Robert Collin and Mary-Clau-
                                                                         de Mitchell, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 avenue Marie-Thérèse.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 December 1999 by Francisco                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Javier Rémon Galar, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                — reverse the Board of Appeal’s decision in that it concluded
Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   that the trade mark did not comply with the provisions of
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4              Article 7, paragraph 1, subparagraph b of Regulation
Rue Beck.                                                                    No 40/94;
 ---pagebreak--- C 63/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
— hold that the denomination ‘Trustedlink’ is in conformity              represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier
    with Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94 for the above                  and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    reasons;                                                             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion
                                                                         Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
— condemn the OHIM to pay all expenses.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decision rejecting the application by the appli-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              cant for the post of Head of the unit responsible for
                                                                             ‘Resources, internal control and relations with the Court of
                                                                             Auditors’ within the former Directorate-General XXIII;
Trade mark concerned:         ‘Trustedlink’
                                                                         — annul the appointment of another candidate to that post;
Product or service:           Computer software for electronic
                              commerce, business consulting
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                              services for integrating commerce
                              technologies and services, softwa-
                              re integration services for integrat-
                              ing corporate application systems          Pleas in law and main arguments
                              with electronic commerce tech-
                              nologies and services, education           The applicant maintains that, by adopting the contested
                              services for electronic commerce           decisions, the defendant has breached the legal framework
                              technologies and services, as well         which it imposed on itself in drawing up the notice of vacancy,
                              as services for assisting organis-         and has infringed the principle of equal treatment and the
                              ations in deploying, expanding             principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects.
                              or managing electronic commerce            He further maintains that the defendant has disregarded
                              technologies and services (classes         Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of officials, inasmuch as it
                              9, 35, 38, 41 and 42)                      has failed to provide him with any information enabling him
                                                                         to examine the validity of the contested decisions.
Decision        contested     decision of the examiner not to
before the Board of           consider the trade mark eligible
Appeal:                       for registration, pursuant to
                              Article 7(1)(b) of the Community
                              Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR)
Pleas in law relied on:       missapplication of Article 7(1)(b)
                              of the CTMR                                Action brought on 15 December 1999 by Sonia Marion
                                                                         Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of
Subsidiary:                   lack of grounds                                             the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-356/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 9 December 1999 by Christian Brum-
ter against the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 December 1999 by Sonia
                        (Case T-351/99)                                  Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott
                                                                         Crosby, with an address for service at the Chambers of
                                                                         Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9 Rond-Point Schuman,
                         (2000/C 63/60)
                                                                         1040 Brussels.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         — annul the refusal of the defendant constituting a failure to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    give a substantive reply to the confirmatory application of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   the applicants of 25 October 1999;
European Communities on 9 December 1999 by Christian
Brumter, residing in Pristina (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia),          — order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.


title: Case C-136/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 March 2012 — Consiglio Nazionale dei Geologi v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 March 2012 — Consiglio Nazionale dei Geologi v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-136/12)
   2012/C 151/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Consiglio Nazionale dei Geologi

      Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Questions referred

               I.

                           1.

                           Do national procedural rules which provide for a system of procedural bars, such as time-limits for bringing proceedings, the requirement that the grounds relied on be specific, a bar on amending the claim in the course of the proceedings and a bar on the court amending the claim as formulated by the applicant, preclude the application of Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU with regard to the obligation on the court of final instance to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question of interpretation of Community law raised by a party to the proceedings?

                           2.

                           Does the power of the national court to ‘filter’ as regards the relevance of the question and to assess the degree of clarity of Community law preclude the application of Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU with regard to the obligation on the court of final instance to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question of interpretation of Community law raised by a party to the proceedings?

                           3.

                           If it is construed as imposing on the national court of final instance an unconditional obligation to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question of interpretation of Community law raised by a party to the proceedings, is Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU consistent with the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time, which is also enshrined in Community law?

                           4.

                           In what factual and legal circumstances does a failure on the part of the national court to comply with Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU constitute a ‘clear breach of Community law’, and can that concept differ in its scope and application with regard to special proceedings against the State, under Law No 117 of 13 April 1988 for ‘compensation for damage caused in the exercise of judicial functions and the civil liability of judges’, and general proceedings against the State for infringement of Community law?

               II.

               Should the Court of Justice accept the argument of the ‘large-mesh filter’ … precluding the application of the national procedural rules concerning the specific nature of the grounds relied on in the application, the questions for a preliminary ruling must be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union in exactly the same terms in which they were formulated by the appellant [in the main proceedings], as set out [below].

                           1.

                           ‘… the European Court of Justice is asked for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 101 of the Treaty (formerly Article 81) in relation to the statutory provisions and rules of conduct regulating the profession of geologist and the institutional responsibilities and rules of procedure of the National Council of Geologists, applicable to the case, as set out below, in order to establish whether they are compatible with and lawful in the light of European Union law (the abovementioned Article 101) concerning the rules on competition.
                           Article 9, with particular reference to Article 9(g), of Law 112/1963, “the National Council of Geologists shall have the following responsibilities, in addition to those conferred on it by other provisions: (a) it shall ensure compliance with the law regulating the profession and all other provisions concerning the profession; (b) it shall ensure that the register and special list are maintained and be responsible for registering members and removing members from the register; (c) it shall ensure that the professional qualification is protected and take measures to prevent the unlawful exercise of the profession; (d) it shall adopt disciplinary measures; (e) it shall, if requested, determine fees; (f) it shall administer the material assets of the National Association and draw up annually the provisional budget and the final balance sheet; (g) it shall establish, within the limits strictly necessary to cover the operating costs of the National Association, by resolution to be approved by the Ministry of Justice, the amount of the annual contribution to be paid by those entered in the register or the special list, as well as the amount of the registration fee for entry in the register or list [and] the charge for issuing certificates and opinions on the determination of fees”.
                           Article 14, first paragraph, of Law 616/1966, which provides that “[a] person entered in the register or special list who fails to act in a manner consistent with the integrity or dignity of the profession may be subject, depending on the seriousness of the offence, to one of the following disciplinary measures: (1) reprimand; (2) suspension from professional activity for a period of not more than one year; (3) removal from the register”.
                           Article 17 of Law 616/1966, which provides that “[t]he scale of professional fees and emoluments and the criteria for the reimbursement of costs shall be established by decree of the Minister of Justice (‘Ministro per la Grazia e Giustizia’ [now the ‘Ministro della Giustizia’], after consultation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce [now the ‘Minister for the Production Sector’], acting on a proposal from the National Council of Geologists”.
                           Article 6 of the New Code of Conduct of 19 December 2006 (Resolution No 143/2006), amended by Resolution No 65 of 24 March 2010 on “professional services”, according to which, “[t]he efficiency and effectiveness of the service shall, in essence, be determined by: the intrinsic technical difficulty; the extent of the responsibility undertaken; the novelty of the request; whether or not existing technical solutions may be applied to the case; the significance of the technical aspects to be assessed; the scale of the technical aspects requiring coordination; the originality of the solution; the amount of time and the level of commitment demanded; the capacity for interaction with the client and with other persons, including undertakings, involved in providing the service; the value of the work”.
                           Article 7 of the New Code of Conduct of 19 December 2006 (Resolution No 143/2006), amended by Resolution No 65 of 24 March 2010 on “[p]rofessional conduct”, according to which “appropriate professional conduct consists, in essence, in the propriety and completeness of the professional service provided; in the capacity to take on responsibility; in having available effective technical and professional equipment; in the ready availability of up-to-date tools; in the organisation of an efficient office and professional team; in the care shown in executing tasks; in having available resources and structures for continuing education and training, including for staff and employees; in the ability to communicate promptly and effectively with the client, and with private and public institutions and bodies and the wider public”.
                           Article 17 of the New Code of Conduct of 19 December 2006 (Resolution No 143/2006), amended by Resolution No 65 of 24 March 2010 on the “[c]riteria for charging”, according to which “[i]n determining professional remuneration, the geologist must comply with the provisions of Decree-law 223/2006 converted into Law 248/2006; the requirement that remuneration must be commensurate laid down in Article 2233, second paragraph, of the Civil Code and, in any event, all the provisions in force governing the subject-matter. The professional scale of fees approved by Ministerial Decree of 18 November 1971, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and the fees in respect of public works, approved by the Ministerial Decree of 4 April 2001 in so far as concerns geologists, constitute a legitimate and objective technical and professional reference criterion for the purpose of the consideration, determination and settlement of questions relating to fees as between the parties”. On that point, in particular, the Court of justice is requested to give a ruling on whether it is contrary to Article 101 of the Treaty to designate Decree-Law 223/2006, with the numerical-chronological system, being the only historically-based and lawful system, at both domestic and Community level, as the mandatory statutory provision in force in its entirety, which undoubtedly has no bearing on whether it is possible for those concerned to be aware of the rule of law or its mandatory effect.
                           Article 18 of the New Code of Conduct of 19 December 2006 (Resolution No 143/2006), amended by resolution No 65 of 24 March 2010 on the “[c]ommensurate nature of the fee”, according to which, “[u]nder the legislation in force, in order to ensure the quality of the services provided, a geologist engaging in professional activity in its various forms — as an individual, as a member of a company or a partnership — must always ensure that the fee charged is commensurate with the scale and difficulty of the task, appropriate professional conduct, technical knowledge and the commitment required. Having regard to the principles of competitiveness, the National Association shall monitor compliance with these requirements”.
                           Article 19 of the New Code of Conduct of 19 December 2006 (Resolution No 143/2006), amended by Resolution No 65 of 24 March 2010 on “[p]ublic tendering procedures”, according to which, “[i]n public tendering procedures, where the public authority legitimately refrains from applying the professional scale of fees as the criterion for remuneration, the geologist shall, in any event, ensure that his or her bid is commensurate with the scale and difficulty of the task, appropriate professional conduct and the technical knowledge and commitment required”.
                           As regards:

                                       —

                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 (1) of 25 July 1985 on the “European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) [designed] to facilitate or develop the economic activities of its members”, states, in the sixth recital in the preamble, that the provisions [contained therein] — are not to prejudice the application at national level of legal rules and/or ethical codes concerning the conditions for the pursuit of business and professional activities;

                                       —

                                       Directive 2005/36/EC (2) of the [European] Parliament and of the Council on the “recognition of professional qualifications” states, in recital 43 that “[t]o the extent that they are regulated, this Directive includes also liberal professions, which are, according to this Directive, those practised on the basis of relevant professional qualifications in a personal, responsible and professionally independent capacity by those providing intellectual and conceptual services in the interest of the client and the public. The exercise of the profession might be subject in the Member States, in conformity with the Treaty, to specific legal constraints based on national legislation and on the statutory provisions laid down autonomously, within that framework, by the respective professional representative bodies, safeguarding and developing their professionalism and quality of service and the confidentiality of relations with the client”.

                                       —

                                       Directive 2006/123/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on “services in the internal market”, known as the “services directive”, provides, in recital 115 that “[c]odes of conduct at Community level are intended to set minimum standards of conduct and are complementary to Member States’ legal requirements. They do not preclude Member States, in accordance with Community law, from taking more stringent measures in law or national professional bodies from providing for greater protection in their national codes of conduct”.

                                 Finally, the Court of Justice is asked to rule on the compatibility with Article 101 of the Treaty of the distinction made, as a matter of law and in terms of the organisation of professional associations, between a professional undertaking and a commercial undertaking, as well as between professional competition and commercial competition’.

                           2.

                                       ‘(a)

                                       Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law prohibit and/or restrict any reference to professional integrity and dignity — of geologists in this case — as factors to be taken into account for the purpose of professional remuneration?

                                       (b)

                                       Under Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law, does the reference to factors pertaining to professional integrity and dignity give rise to effects which restrict professional competition?

                                       (c)

                                       Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law establish that the requirements of integrity and dignity as factors to be taken into account for the purpose of determining professional remuneration in connection with minimum fees, in respect of which derogations are expressly stated to be permitted — given the express and formal reference in Article 17 of the New Code of Conduct for Geologists to the statutory provision which permits that derogation (Decree-Law No 223/2006, converted into Law 248/2006), may be regarded as conducive to conduct that restricts competition?

                                       (d)

                                       Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law prohibit the reference to the professional scale of fees — established, in the case of geologists, by a State measure in the form of a Ministerial Decree of the Minister of Justice, after consultation with the Minister for the Production Sector, and which may be derogated from as regards minimum fees, it must be reiterated, as a result of the express and formal reference to Decree-Law No 223/2006 in Article 17 of the New Code of Conduct — as a purely technical and professional reference criterion for determining remuneration?

                                       (e)

                                       Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law prohibit the correlation between the scale of the services to be provided and the requirements of integrity and dignity, as also defined in Articles 6 and 7 of the New Code of Conduct for Geologists on the one hand, and professional remuneration on the other, as provided for by Article 2233, second paragraph, of the Civil Code, according to which “in any event, the amount of the [professional] remuneration must be commensurate with the scale of work performed and the dignity of the profession”?

                                       (f)

                                       Under Article 101 TFEU, therefore, can the reference to Article 2233, second paragraph, of the Civil Code be regarded as legitimate and not likely to have a restrictive effect on competition?

                                       (g)

                                       Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law establish, in the context of the rules on competition, equality in law between a professional association, in this case for geologists, as regulated by specific State rules laid down for the pursuit of their objectives as an institution, and restrictive agreements, decisions or practices and concentrations of commercial undertakings constituting anti-competitive agreements?

                                       (h)

                                       Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law make it possible to establish equivalence between a contribution to a professional association that is mandatory under the law — and is made for the pursuit of institutional functions and objectives — and the activity of selling goods or services and the financial profit accrued and obtained as a result of anti-competitive conduct on the part of concentrations of commercial undertakings?

                                       (i)

                                       Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law justify the imposition of a penalty in this case?

                                       (j)

                                       Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law justify making contributions to a professional association, which are mandatory under the law, subject to a compulsory levy, equating those contributions to profit and revenue deriving from an anti-competitive economic and commercial agreement?

                                 …’.

               III.

                           ‘1.

                           In the alternative, should the Court answer the questions concerning the interpretation of Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU to the effect that the national rules of procedure are of no effect and the national court is under a duty to provide assistance, and the question for a preliminary ruling, as raised by the appellant, to the effect that the party’s question is of a general nature, the question for a preliminary ruling is whether Community law on competition and the professions, in particular the Community provisions relied upon by the appellant in its question, preclude the adoption of professional codes of conduct which make remuneration commensurate with professional integrity and dignity and the quality and scale of the work performed, with the result that remuneration which falls below the threshold of minimum fees (and is therefore competitive) may be penalised, at disciplinary level, as being in breach of the rules of professional conduct?

                           2.

                           In the alternative, should the Court answer the questions concerning the interpretation of Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU to the effect that the national rules of procedure are of no effect and the national court is under a duty to provide assistance, and the question for a preliminary ruling, as raised by the appellant, to the effect that the party’s question is of a general nature, the question for a preliminary ruling is whether Community competition law, in particular the rules prohibiting restrictive agreements, may be interpreted as meaning that a restrictive agreement may consist in rules of professional conduct established by professional associations, where, by referring to professional integrity and dignity, as well as the quality and scale of the work performed as criteria for determining professional remuneration, those rules have the effect of prohibiting derogations from minimum fees and, consequently, also of restricting competition because derogation is prohibited?

                           3.

                           In the alternative, should the Court answer the questions concerning the interpretation of Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU to the effect that the national rules of procedure are of no effect and the national court is under a duty to provide assistance, and the question for a preliminary ruling, as raised by the appellant, to the effect that the party’s question is of a general nature, the question for a preliminary ruling is whether, if national law lays down rules to safeguard competition which are more stringent than the Community rules, in particular by establishing the possibility of derogating from the minimum fees set by the scale of professional fees, when, in fact, Community law appears still to permit the prohibition on derogating from minimum fees in certain circumstances, and, consequently, if action taken by a professional association prohibiting derogation from minimum fees constitutes an agreement that is restrictive of competition according to national law, but may not be regarded as such under Community law, Community competition law, in particular the Community rules on agreements which restrict competition, preclude such an outcome whereby a particular form of conduct is regarded as punishable as a restrictive agreement under national law but not under Community law, whenever national rules for safeguarding competition are more stringent than the Community rules?’

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 199, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

      (3)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


title: Case T-318/02: Action brought on 11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports Company, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
11.1.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/19
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and A. Dal Ferro)
                                                                            — application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
                      of 25 September 2002                                  No 896/2001 of 7 may 2001 laying down detailed rules for
                                                                            applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the
                                                                            arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ
in Case T-178/01: Di Leonardo Adriano SRL v Com-
                                                                            2001 L 126, p. 19) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-
                                                                            Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
(Bananas — Regulation No 896/2001 — Action for annul-                       order on 25 September 2002, in which it:
    ment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)
                           (2003/C 7/38)                                    1.    Held the action to be inadmissible.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.01.
In Case T-178/01: Di Leonardo Adriano SRL, represented by
A. Bozzi, C. Gatti and B. Telchini, lawyers, against Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and A. Dal
Ferro) — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 896/2001 of 7 may 2001 laying down detailed rules
for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards
the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community
(OJ 2001 L 126, p. 19) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-                 Action brought on 11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                Company, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in
order on 25 September 2002, in which it:                                           the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
1.    Held the action to be inadmissible;
                                                                                (Case T-318/02)
2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 7/40)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.01.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                      of 25 September 2002                                  11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports Company, Inc., Redmond,
                                                                            Washington, U.S.A., represented by Mr Fabrizio Jacobacci,
in Case T-179/01: Dilexport SRL v Commission of the                         lawyer.
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Bananas — Regulation No 896/2001 — Action for annul-
    ment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)
                                                                            —     amend the decision of 17 July 2002 (File No. R 140/
                                                                                2002-3) of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                           (2003/C 7/39)
                                                                                Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs) and allow the Community Trade Mark
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               Application to proceed to registration in connection with
                                                                                the following goods:
In Case T-179/01: Dilexport SRL, represented by A. Bozzi,                         —     ‘backpacks; travel bags; duffel bags for practice of
C. Gatti and B. Telchini, lawyers, against Commission of the                            wakeboard’ in international class 18;
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        11.1.2003
      —     ‘sportswear, jackets; T-shirts, sweatshirts, polo shirts,     Grounds of claim:               The decision is contradictory in
            volley shorts, training shorts and short pants; swim-                                         that although the Board of Appeal
            ming suits; hats; wet suits; wet suit boots; dry suits;                                       recognises that all the different
            water ski boots; water ski vests, water ski gloves;                                           observations and documents filed
            spray legs, all meant to be used for the practice of                                          by the H.O. Sports, Inc. in their
            wakeboard’ in international class 25;                                                         entirety constantly refer to the
                                                                                particular market of wakeboard,
                                                                                it sustains that acquired distinc-
                                                                                tiveness under Article 7 (3) of
      —     ‘water sport tow ropes, water sport tow handles;                                              Regulation No. 40/94 (1) has been
            water sport tow floats; inflatable tubes for rec-                                             established for certain goods only.
            reational use in water; towable water toys designed
            to carry a rider; wake boards; wake board bindings;
            wake board fins; water skis; trick water skis; jump
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-
            skis; water ski bindings; adjustable ski fins; water ski           munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
            boat tow harnesses; water ski gloves; knee boards;
            water sport boards; water sport gear bags; water ski,
            wakeboard and knee board bags; water sport goods;
            dampers for use with water skis; wake boards to
            limit vibration and adjust flex, all meant to be used
            for the practice of wakeboard’ in international
            class 28.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports Inc.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs, fees and disburse-            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      ments of this case and of the previous proceedings and                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      appeals before OHIM Examination Division and the Third
      Board of Appeal respectively.
                                                                                (Case T-319/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/41)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
The trade mark con-             The word mark ‘HYPERLITE’ —               Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
cerned:                         application No 997122                     11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports Inc., Redmond, Washington,
                                                                          U.S.A., represented by Mr Fabrizio Jacobacci, lawyer.
Goods or service con-           Goods in classes 18, 25 and 28
cerned:                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     amend the decision of 17 July 2002 (File No. R 140/
Decision          contested     Refusal of registration by the                  2002-3) of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
before the Board of             examiner                                        Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
Appeal:                                                                         and Designs) and allow the Community Trade Mark
                                                                                Application to proceed to registration in connection with
                                                                                the following goods:
Decision of the Board of        Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                         examiner in so far as it rejects                —     ‘backpacks; travel bags; duffel bags for practice of
                                registration of the application for                   wakeboard’ in international class 18;
                                ‘wakeboards, wakeboard bind-
                                ings; wakeboard fins; wakeboard                 —     ‘sportswear, jackets; T-shirts, sweatshirts, polo shirts,
                                bags; dampers for use with wake                       volley shorts, training shorts and short pants; swim-
                                boards to limit vibration and                         ming suits; hats; wet suits; wet suit boots; dry suits;
                                adjust flex’, all in class 28, and                    water ski boots; water ski vests, water ski gloves;
                                dismissal of the appeal for the                       spray legs, all meant to be used for the practice of
                                remainder.                                            wakeboard’ in international class 25;


title: Case F-30/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — Roda v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Death of former spouse — Maintenance — Pre-litigation procedure — Requirement of a complaint — Unduly late — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — Roda v Commission
   (Case F-30/13)
   (Civil service - Survivor’s pension - Death of former spouse - Maintenance - Pre-litigation procedure - Requirement of a complaint - Unduly late - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2014/C 39/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Silvana Roda (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: L. Ribolzi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request to receive a survivor’s pension at the rate of 60 % of the last basic salary of her late ex-husband.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Roda is ordered to bear her own costs.


title: Case T-613/15: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Frontex

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/33

      Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Frontex
      (Case T-613/15) (1)

      (2016/C 454/56)
      Language of the case: Greek
      The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Case T-187/12: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Bäßler v OHIM (MAX) (Application — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/23

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Bäßler v OHIM (MAX)
   (Case T-187/12)
   (Application - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 399/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Uwe Bäßler (Gmunden, Austria) (represented by: L. Müller, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2012 (Case R 0909/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark MAX as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-320/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Marle Participations SARL v Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Marle Participations SARL v Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-320/17)
   (2017/C 269/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État (Council of State, France)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marle Participations SARL

      Defendant: Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances

      Question referred

   The Court of Justice is asked to rule on the question as to whether — and, if so, under what conditions — the letting of buildings by a holding company to a subsidiary constitutes a direct or indirect involvement in the management of that subsidiary the effect of which being that the acquisition and holding of shares in that subsidiary are considered economic activities within the meaning of the Directive of 28 November 2006 (1) on the common system of value added tax.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-341/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT No 737 v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT No 737 v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat
   (Case C-341/11)
   2011/C 269/67
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT No 737

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

               2.

               If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?


title: Case C-448/03: Action brought on 24 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
29.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/17
Action brought on 21 October 2003 by the Commission                       Furthermore, the requirements seem to exceed what is necess-
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                       ary to achieve the objective pursued. The requirement of prior
                          of Luxembourg                                   authorisation constitutes an obstacle, given that a supplier of
                                                                          services must often work under time pressure in respect of
                                                                          customers established in Luxembourg and prior authorisation
                         (Case C-445/03)                                  and any delay in issuing it may make the supply of services
                                                                          impossible. The requirements of a contract for an indefinite
                                                                          period and previous employment of at least six months prior
                         (2003/C 289/33)                                  to the posting also seem disproportionate since the presence
                                                                          of the workers in question has no impact on the Luxembourg
                                                                          job market. As for the bank guarantee, such a charge
                                                                          discriminates against foreign suppliers of services already
                                                                          subject to fees in order to obtain a work permit in their
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                       Member State of establishment.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 21 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          Action brought on 24 October 2003 by the Commission
the Court should:
                                                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
1.    Declare that:
                                                                                (Case C-448/03)
      —     by requiring an individual or collective work permit
                                                                                (2003/C 289/34)
            from a supplier of services established in another
            Member State where that supplier wishes to post its
            personnel made up of nationals of non-Member
            countries lawfully residing and working in that other
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
            Member State and making the issue of that permit
            subject to considerations connected with the job              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 October
            market and to the existence of a contract of indefinite       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
            duration and of previous employment with the same             represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg.
            supplier of services for at least 6 months;
      —     by requiring that the same supplier of services               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
            provide a bank guarantee in the minimum sum of                the Court should:
            LUF 60 000 (EUR 1 487,36),
                                                                          1.    Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      obligations under Article 49 EC;                                          Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
                                                                                biotechnological inventions (1) or, in any event, by not
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     communicating those provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                                French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Article 15 of that directive;
                                                                          2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The conditions for the posting to Luxembourg of workers who               Pleas in law and main arguments
are nationals of non-Member countries as part of a cross-
border supply of services are incompatible with Community
law, in particular with the freedom to provide services under             The time-limit fixed for the transposition of the directive
Article 49 EC. The imposition of such conditions on the                   expired on 30 July 2000.
supplier of services from another Member State discriminates
against that supplier by comparison with its competitors
established in the host Member State which may freely use                 (1) OJ L 213 of 30.07.1998, p. 13.
their own staff and also affects its capacity to supply the
services.


title: Case T-637/14: Order of the General Court of 13 April 2015 — noon Copenhagen v OHIM — Wurster Diamonds (noon)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/42

         Order of the General Court of 13 April 2015 — noon Copenhagen v OHIM — Wurster Diamonds (noon)
   (Case T-637/14) (1)

   (2015/C 205/58)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-254/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Pinzón v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/49

         Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Pinzón v Council and Commission
   (Case T-254/07)
   (2007/C 211/92)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: S. Coop. And. Agrícola y Ganadera de Pinzón (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare under Article 288 EC that the applicant is entitled to have damage totalling one million two hundred and ninety eight thousand eight hundred and sixty one euros (EUR 1 298 861) made good by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case C-87/17 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2017 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 December 2016 in Case T-655/16 CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/20

         Appeal brought on 17 February 2017 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 December 2016 in Case T-655/16 CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-87/17 P)
   (2017/C 277/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union
   By order of 5 July 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case F-129/14: Action brought on 3 November 2014  — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/61

         Action brought on 3 November 2014 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-129/14)
   (2015/C 007/79)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: EEAS

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the EEAS’ decision to remove the applicant from his post without reducing his pension rights.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the EEAS’ decision of 16 January 2014 to remove the applicant from his post without reducing his pension rights;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case T-454/07: Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Prym and Others v Commission

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/45

         Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Prym and Others v Commission
   (Case T-454/07)
   (2008/C 51/85)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: William Prym GmbH & Co KG (Stolberg, Germany), Prym Inovan GmbH & Co KG (Stolberg, Germany), EP Group S.A. (Comines-Warneton, Belgium) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and C. Herrmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant of 19 September 2007, in so far as it is addressed to the applicants;

               —

               In the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants under Article 2 of the decision to a reasonable amount;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery — Fasteners. Pursuant to that decision, companies in the Prym group were fined for infringement of Article 81 EC in respect of three separate infringements in the hard haberdashery sector, whereas the Commission found a total of four infringements.
   The applicants base their action on eleven pleas in law.
   In connection with the allegation of multilateral cooperation in relation to ‘other fasteners’ and attaching machines, it is submitted as follows:

               —

               Infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), as one set of actions was split up into two separate infringements;

               —

               Erroneous application of the Leniency Notice of 2002 (2), as the reduction of the fine by 30 % was too low.

         In connection with the allegation of trilateral cooperation in the sector of zip fasteners, it is submitted as follows:

               —

               Unlawful taking into account of the conduct of a joint venture of the first and second applicants and erroneous calculation of the fine imposed on the third applicant;

               —

               Infringement of Section C or D of the Leniency Notice of 1996 (3).

         With regard to the allegation of bilateral cooperation with an undertaking of the Coats group, it is submitted as follows:

               —

               Infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, since that cooperation and one of the infringements penalised by Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) were split up into two separate infringements, although they should be treated as a single infringement;

               —

               Infringement of the ne bis in idem principle by imposing a second fine in respect of the same act;

               —

               Infringement of Article 253 EC by failing to provide sufficient reasons for the splitting up of a single infringement;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of cooperation and of equal treatment.

         With regard to the determination of the fine, the following is submitted:

               —

               Infringement of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (4) and of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of equal treatment;

               —

               Infringement of Article 253 EC by failing to provide sufficient reasons for the setting of the starting amount and for the definition of the objectively relevant markets;

               —

               In the alternative, infringement of the principle of proportionality by the excessive overall burden imposed on the applicants and failure to provide adequate reasons.

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

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

      (3)  Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4).

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


title: Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-185/96)

text:
No C 247/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24 . 8 .
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Action brought on 24 May 1996 by the Commission of the                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                1 . declare that, in so far as it precludes, by regulation or
                         ( Case C- 179/96                                   administrative practice, by reason of nationality,
                                                                            Community workers, whether employees or
                            ( 96/C 247/05 )                                 self-employed , and the members of their families, on the
                                                                            one hand from having large-family status recognized for
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                         the purpose of the award of the relevant benefits
brought before the Court of Justice on 24 May 1996 by the                   provided for the members of large families, and, on the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                      other hand, from being awarded family supplements,
Dimitrios Gouloussis, acting as Agent, with an address for                  the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                   under Community law, in particular Articles 48
Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                      and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                            No 1612/68 ('), Article 7 of Regulation No 1251 /70 ( 2 ),
                                                                            Article 7 of Directive 75/34/EEC ( 3 ), and Article 3 of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                Regulation No 1408/71 ( 4 );
1 . declare that, by requiring general agents to have their            2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
    registered office ( in the case of legal persons ) or their
    residence ( in the case of natural persons ) in
    Luxembourg, and by requiring directors, general agents,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    inspectors, representatives and brokers, and any other
    person carrying on insurance operations, to reside in              Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 1612/68 , applying Article 48
    Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                      of the Treaty, provides that Community workers are to
    failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC        enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national
    Treaty;
                                                                       workers and , according to the settled case-law of the Court,
                                                                       that provision may not be interpreted restrictively . The
                                                                       Commission is of the opinion that the recognition of
2 . order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    costs .
                                                                       large-family status and the grant of the benefits and family
                                                                       supplements referred to above to large families constitute
                                                                       Community advantages within the meaning of that article .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Moreover, no rule of demographic policy can justify
                                                                       measures discriminating against Community nationals who
The restriction on freedom to provide insurance services               reside and work in Greece .
which is imposed by the legislation referred to on account of
the fact that a supplier of those services is established in a         (')  OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
Member State other than the one in which the service is                (2)  OJ , English Special Edition 1970 ( II ), p. 402 .
provided is manifestly contrary to Article 59 of the EC                (■') OJ No L 14 , 1975 ,  p . 10 .
Treaty, since it makes it impossible for nationals of Member           (4 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
States established in a Community country other than
Luxembourg to carry on their activities by providing
services in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                       Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by orders of that
                                                                       court of 21 February and 15 May 1996 in the criminal
                                                                       proceedings pending before that court against Mario
Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the                                     Modesti and Lahlou Hassan
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                   ( Cases C-191 /96 and C-196/96 )
                         ( Case C-185 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/07 )
                           ( 96/C 247/06 )
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             European Communities by orders of the Pretura
the Court of Justice on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of               Circondariale di Roma ( District Magistrates ' Court, Rome ),
the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia ,               Tivoli Division , of 21 February 1996 and 15 May 1996 ,
of the Commission 's Legal Service, with an address for                which were received at the Court Registry on 3 June and
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la              10 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner                   proceedings pending before that court against Mario
Centre , Kirchberg .                                                   Modesti and Lahlou Hassan .


15.5.1999               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 136/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                              Removal from the registrer of Case C-329/98 (1)
Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, by order
of that court of 14 January, 25 February and 11 March                                                (1999/C 136/26)
1999 in the case of Veneta Assicurazione SpA against
                 Ufficio del Registro di Padova
                                                                             By order of 12 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                          (Case C-102/99)                                    from the register of Case C-329/98: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                          (1999/C 136/23)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
ria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, (Regional Tax Court
— Sixth Chamber, Venice) of 14 January, 25 February and
11 March 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
22 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veneta
Assicurazione SpA against Ufficio del Registro di Padova on
the question whether or not Note I to Article 4, Part I, of                         Removal from the register of Case C-85/98 (1)
Presidential Decree No 131/86 is contrary to the provisions of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as subsequently amended.                                                   (1999/C 136/27)
                                                                             By order of 16 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-85/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ, English special edition, Series I 1969(II), p. 412.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-413/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/24)                                           Removal from the register of Case C-396/97 (1)
By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the First Chamber                                       (1999/C 136/28)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-413/97:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic                    By order of 23 February 1999 the President of the First
of Germany.                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                             has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/97:
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-429/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/25)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/29)
By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  By order of 24 February 1999 the President of the Court of
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission of the European Communi-                     from the register of Case C-429/98: Commission of the
ties.                                                                        European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                    (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.


title: Case C-217/01 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2001 by Michel Hendrickx against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hendrickx and the Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle (CEDEFOP)

text:
28.7.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 212/17
—      Failure to implement Article 9 of the directive: Until          professionnelle (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court of
       Germany has adopted provisions for the implementation           Justice of the European Communities on 25 May 2001 by
       of Article 6 and Article 7, there are inevitably no             Michel Hendrickx, represented by J.N. Louis and V. Peere, with
       provisions regarding the procedures for circulating the         an address for service in Luxembourg.
       information and those to whom the information is to be
       addressed.
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.                                        set aside the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                       of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 (Michel Hendrickx v
                                                                       CEDEFOP) (1);
                                                                       then, itself giving judgment on the basis of new provisions:
                                                                       —     grant the appellant leave to amend his pleas in law and
                                                                             submissions;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
Augsburg by order of that court of 26 February 2001 in                 in the alternative,
      the matter of a fine imposed on Bruno Schnitzer
                                                                       —     hold that the decision of the Director of CEDEFOP of
                                                                             14 November 2000 was taken by an incompetent
                        (Case C-215/01)                                      authority;
                        (2001/C 212/29)                                —     consequently, annul that decision and also CEDEFOP’s
                                                                             implied decision rejecting the appellant’s claim for pay-
                                                                             ment of a (re-)installation allowance corresponding to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       two months’ basic salary;
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Augsburg
of 26 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 23 May          —     order the defendant to pay the appellant the sum of
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the matter of a fine on Bruno              FEB 316 292, plus default interest at 7 % per annum
Schnitzer on the following question:                                         from 22 July 1999, and to pay the costs of both sets of
                                                                             proceedings.
Is it compatible with EC law on the free movement of services
for a Portuguese undertaking, which in its country of origin
fulfils the conditions for carrying on a commercial activity, to
have to satisfy further — albeit purely formal — conditions (in        Pleas in law and main arguments
this case registration on the Skilled Trades Register), in order
to carry on that activity in Germany not just on a short-term
                                                                       —     The Court of First Instance erred in law in deciding that
basis but for a longer period?
                                                                             CEDEFOP had granted the appellant’s claim, whereas the
                                                                             decision of 14 November 2000 is a non-existent decision
                                                                             adopted by an incompetent authority: the Director of
                                                                             CEDEFOP could not lawfully determine the appellant’s
                                                                             claim, since the matter had been referred to the Appeals
                                                                             Board;
                                                                       —     (In the alternative) The Court of First Instance erred in
Appeal brought on 25 May 2001 by Michel Hendrickx                            law since, by not granting the appellant leave to amend
against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the Fifth                         his submissions and pleas in law, it did not allow him to
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                       bring before the Community judicature the dispute
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hend-                            between himself and CEDEFOP over, first, the fixing of
rickx and the Centre européen pour le développement de                       the (re-)installation allowance to which he was entitled as
           la formation professionnelle (CEDEFOP)                            a result of being reassigned to the Council in Brussels
                                                                             and, second, the reimbursement of a sum allegedly paid
                                                                             in error in connection with the installation allowance
                       (Case C-217/01 P)                                     paid to him when he took up his post in Thessalonika.
                        (2001/C 212/30)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001, p. 18.
An appeal against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hendrickx and
the Centre européen pour le développement de la formation