title: Case T-359/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Arrom Conseil v EUIPO — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci — Earlier EU word marks NINA RICCI and RICCI — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Arrom Conseil v EUIPO — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
   (Case T-359/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci - Earlier EU word marks NINA RICCI and RICCI - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 402/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nina Ricci SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2015 (Case R 1021/2014-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Nina Ricci SARL and Arrom Conseil.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Arrom Conseil to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and Nina Ricci SARL.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-656/11 R II: Order of the General Court (the judge hearing the application for interim measures) of 13 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/22

         Order of the General Court (the judge hearing the application for interim measures) of 13 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council
   (Case T-656/11 R II)
   (Application for interim measures - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 227/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Dubai Office (Dubai); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Sharjah Office (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: H. Viaene, T. Ruys and D. Gillet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), to the extent that they add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity designated as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-385/07: Judgment of the Court of 17 February 2011 — FIFA v Commission (Television broadcasting — Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC — Measures taken by the Kingdom of Belgium concerning events of major importance for Belgian society — Football World Cup — Decision declaring the measures compatible with Community law — Statement of reasons — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Right to property)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/19

         Judgment of the Court of 17 February 2011 — FIFA v Commission
   (Case T-385/07) (1)

   (Television broadcasting - Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC - Measures taken by the Kingdom of Belgium concerning events of major importance for Belgian society - Football World Cup - Decision declaring the measures compatible with Community law - Statement of reasons - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Right to property)
   2011/C 103/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented initially by: R. Denton, E. Batchelor, F. Young, Solicitors, and A. Barav, lawyer, and subsequently by E. Batchelor, A. Barav, D. Reymond, lawyer, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, Agents, assisted by J. Flynn, QC, and L. Maya, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, A. Berenboom and A. Joachimowicz, lawyers); Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, E. Jenkinson and L. Seeboruth, Agents, assisted initially by T. de la Mare, and subsequently by B. Kennelly, Barristers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by Belgium pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 180, p. 24).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Case T-161/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Tecnifar (E-PLEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark E-PLEX — Earlier national word mark EPILEX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Tecnifar (E-PLEX)
   (Case T-161/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark E-PLEX - Earlier national word mark EPILEX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 204/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tecnifar — Industria Tecnica Farmaceutica, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 February 2010 (Case R 662/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tecnifar — Industria Tecnica Farmaceutica, SA and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case F-12/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — O'Connor v Commission (Staff case — Other servants — Consecutive contracts as a member of the temporary staff, auxiliary staff and contract staff — Maximum period of payment of unemployment allowance — Admissibility)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/42

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — O'Connor v Commission
   (Case F-12/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Other servants - Consecutive contracts as a member of the temporary staff, auxiliary staff and contract staff - Maximum period of payment of unemployment allowance - Admissibility)
   (2007/C 283/76)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Elizabeth O'Connor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J. -N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision to set the maximum period for the award of an unemployment allowance to the applicant at 11 months and 25 days, instead of 17,83 months, where the former member of the Commission staff had been employed by the latter under different contracts as a member of the temporary staff, the auxiliary staff and the contract staff from 16 January 2001 to 31 December 2005.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to bear all the costs, including those of the applicant including any incurred in the context of her application for legal aid.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007, p. 57.


title: Case C-306/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of I.B. (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4 — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4(6) — Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence — Article 5 — Guarantees to be provided by the issuing Member State — Article 5(1) — Sentence imposed in absentia — Article 5(3) — Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution — Surrender subject to the condition that the requested person be returned to the Member State of execution — Joint application of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) — Compatibility)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of I.B.
   (Case C-306/09) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4 - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4(6) - Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence - Article 5 - Guarantees to be provided by the issuing Member State - Article 5(1) - Sentence imposed in absentia - Article 5(3) - Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution - Surrender subject to the condition that the requested person be returned to the Member State of execution - Joint application of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) - Compatibility)
   2010/C 346/27
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Party to the main proceedings

   I.B.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 4(6) and 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) and of Article 6(2) of the EU Treaty — Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant and guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State — Possibility for the executing Member State to make the surrender of a person residing on its territory subject to the condition that that person, after having been heard in the issuing Member State, be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order that may have been imposed on him in the issuing Member State — Particular situation of a person already sentenced in the issuing Member State but under a decision made in absentia against which that person still has a remedy — Possible effect on the decision to be taken by the judicial authorities of the executing Member State, arising from a risk of infringement of the fundamental rights of the person concerned and, in particular, of his right to a private and family life

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 4(6) and 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing Member State has implemented Articles 5(1) and Article 5(3) of that framework decision in its domestic legal system, the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence imposed in absentia within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the framework decision, may be subject to the condition that the person concerned, a national or resident of the executing Member State, should be returned to the executing State in order, as the case may be, to serve there the sentence passed against him, following a new trial organised in his presence in the issuing Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009, p. 11.


title: Case F-41/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Roumimper v European Police Office (Europol) (Public service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract for an indefinite period — Article 6 Europol Staff Regulation — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/71

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Roumimper v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-41/09) (1)

      (Public service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract for an indefinite period - Article 6 Europol Staff Regulation - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/132)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Jacques Pierre Roumimper (Zoetermeer, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, and subsequently by W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury Agents, and B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer him a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 dismissing the complaint against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to award a contract for an indefinite period to Mr Roumimper;

                  2.

                  Orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.09, p. 63.


title: Case T-283/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014  — FIS'D v Commission (Erasmus Mundus action programme — Framework partnership agreement — Specific grant agreement — EACEA decision to rescind the framework agreement and amend the specific agreement — Administrative appeal before the Commission — Commission decision dismissing the administrative appeal as unfounded — Infringement of the agreements and the administrative and financial manual)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — FIS'D v Commission
   (Case T-283/12) (1)

   ((Erasmus Mundus action programme - Framework partnership agreement - Specific grant agreement - EACEA decision to rescind the framework agreement and amend the specific agreement - Administrative appeal before the Commission - Commission decision dismissing the administrative appeal as unfounded - Infringement of the agreements and the administrative and financial manual))
   (2014/C 448/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design (Catanzaro, Italy) (represented by: initially, S. Bariatti and A. Sodano, then, F. Sutti and A. Boso Caretta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, M. Van Hoof, then, C. Cattabriga and D. Roussanov and finally, C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent, M. Merola and C. Santacroce, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 April 2012 (ref. Ares (2012) 446225) dismissing the administrative appeal against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of 13 January 2012 by which the latter rescinded early the framework partnership agreement 2011/0181 which it had concluded with the Università degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria (Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Italy) and amended the specific grant agreement which it had concluded with that university

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-397/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Erika Jőrös v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt. (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair — Consequences to be drawn by the national court from a finding that the term is unfair)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Erika Jőrös v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.
   (Case C-397/11) (1)

   (Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair - Consequences to be drawn by the national court from a finding that the term is unfair)
   2013/C 225/12
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly known as Fővárosi Bíróság)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erika Jőrös

      Defendant: Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — National legislation providing that a national court is limited in its examination of whether standard contract terms are unfair where the parties do not expressly seek a finding that such a term is unfair — Option for the national court of second instance to find of its own motion that a term of a contract before it is unfair even if that point was not raised at first instance and, under national rules, no account may be taken on appeal of new facts and evidence

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that where a national court, dealing with an appeal concerning the validity of terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer on the basis of a form prepared in advance by that seller or supplier, has the power, under its internal procedural rules, to examine any grounds for invalidity clearly apparent from the elements submitted at first instance and, if necessary, to redefine, depending on the facts determined, the legal basis relied upon to establish that those terms are invalid, it must assess, of its own motion or by redefining the legal basis of the application, whether those terms are unfair in the light of the criteria in that directive.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has established that a contractual term is unfair is required, first, without waiting for the consumer to make an application in that regard, to draw all the consequences which, under national law, result from that finding in order to satisfy itself that that consumer is not bound by that term and, secondly, to assess, in principle on the basis of objective criteria, whether the contract concerned can continue in existence without that term.

               3.

               Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has, of its own motion, established that a contractual term is unfair must, as far as possible, apply its internal procedural rules in such a way as to draw all the consequences which, under national law, result from a finding that the term at issue is unfair, in order to satisfy itself that the consumer is not bound by that term.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 57, 5.3.2005

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/28

         (2005/C 69/48)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

      OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

      OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

      OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

      OJ C 314, 18.12.2004

      OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-107/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Power to alter decisions)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT)
   (Case T-107/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Power to alter decisions))
   (2017/C 221/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Airhole Facemasks, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada) (represented by: S. Barker, Solicitor, and A. Michaels, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: sindustrysurf, SL (Trapagaran, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 2547/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Airhole Facemasks and sindustrysurf.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2016 (Case R 2547/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Airhole Facemasks, Inc. and sindustrysurf, SL, and alters it to the effect that the appeal brought before EUIPO by sindustrysurf against the Cancellation Division’s decision of 30 July 2014 is dismissed;

               2.

               Orders Airhole Facemasks and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs incurred before the General Court;

               3.

               Orders sindustrysurf to pay the costs incurred by Airhole Facemasks before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-494/04: Action brought on 22 December 2004 by Wineke Neirinck against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/34

         Action brought on 22 December 2004 by Wineke Neirinck against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-494/04)
   (2005/C 57/58)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 December 2004 by Wineke Neirinck, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of which the applicant became aware at the meeting of the OIB.1 unit (Office for Infrastructure and Logistics – Brussels – implementation of buildings policy) of 4 March 2004, by which another candidate had been selected for the post of lawyer in the sector of buildings policy in the OIB for which the applicant had applied;

               —

               annul the confirmatory decision of 9 March 2004 informing the applicant that her application had been rejected;

               —

               annul the subsequent decision of 27 April 2004 informing the applicant that she had not passed the oral test and thus confirming the appointment of another person;

               —

               in any event, award EUR 30 000 in respect of compensation for the non-material and material damage suffered by the applicant, that sum being provisionally assessed on an equitable basis;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant, at the time a temporary agent at the Commission in the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics – Brussels (OIB), applied for the post of lawyer in the sector of buildings policy in the OIB. By her action, she seeks annulment of the decisions rejecting her application and appointing another person to the post in question and compensation for the alleged non-material and material damage she suffered.
   In support of her action, the applicant relies on the failure to have regard for the interests of the service and infringement of the general principles of impartiality, objectivity, non-discrimination, transparency and the obligation to give reasons and an abuse of due process. The applicant submits that the selection of the person appointed to the post in question was decided without any statutory procedure and without being preceded by any comparative examination of the merits of that person with those of the applicant. In the same context, the applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials and good administration. The applicant also alleges infringement of the general principle of equal treatment by reference to the fact that all the temporary and auxiliary agents of OIB, whose contracts expired on 1 May 2004, remained in OIB beyond that date with the exception of the applicant.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 25 May 1998 in Case C-80/97: Société des Caves et des Producteurs Réunis des Roquefort and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Cases brought before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance having as their subject-matter the annulment of the same act - Disclaimer of jurisdiction by the Court of First Instance)

text:
C 278/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
2. Reisebüro Binder GmbH shall bear its own costs.                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 25 May 1998
( ) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.
 1
                                                                    in Case C-80/97: SocieÂteÂ des Caves et des Producteurs
                                                                    ReÂunis des Roquefort and Others v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Cases brought before the Court of Justice and the Court
                                                                    of First Instance having as their subject-matter the
                                                                    annulment of the same act Ð Disclaimer of jurisdiction by
                                                                                the Court of First Instance)
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         (98/C 278/14)
                        (First Chamber)
                        of 7 May 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-239/97: Ireland v. Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)
(Admissibility Ð Time limit for bringing proceedings Ð
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
       Unforeseeable circumstances Ð Force majeure)
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                         (98/C 278/13)
                                                                    In Case C-80/97: SocieÂteÂ des Caves et des Producteurs
                                                                    ReÂunis de Roquefort, established in Roquefort-sur-Salzon
               (Language of the case: English)                      (France), SocieÂteÂ FromageÁre Corse, established in Bastia
                                                                    (France), SocieÂteÂ pour la Valorisation du Lait de Brebis
                                                                    du Grand Sud-Ouest (Valbreso), established in La
                                                                    Canourgue (France), La Compagnie des Fromages SAS,
In Case C-239/97: Ireland, represented by Michael A.                established in Vire (France), Fromager du Causse SARL,
Buckley, Chief State Solicitor, acting as Agent, and by Paul        established in Roquefort (France), Alliance Agro-
Gallagher, SC, and Niamh Hyland, barrister-at-law, v.               Alimentaire SCC (3A), established in Toulouse (France),
Commission of the European Communities, represented                 ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des Producteurs de Lait de Brebis
by Peter Oliver Ð application for the annulment of                  et des Industriels de Roquefort, established in Millau
Commission Decision C(97) 693 of 16 April 1997                      Millau (France), represented by F. Ancel, of the Paris Bar,
concerning the reduction of assistance from the European            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the operational                 Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, against
programme for Tourism in Ireland 1989Ð93 within the                 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. L.
Community support framework for structural assistance               Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid), supported by
under Objective 1 in Ireland for the period 1989Ð93 and             Koinopraktiki Tyrokomikon Monado Ioanninon Pindos
amending Decision C(89) 2258/7 of 21 December 1989 as               AEBE, having its head office in Ioannina (Greece),
last amended by Decision C(93) 3769 of 17 December                  represented by N. Korojiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with
1993 Ð the Court (First Chamber), compsed of: M.                    an address for service in Luxembourg at Brown Holding
Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and             SA, 310 Route d'Esch, L-1471 Luxembourg Ð application
L. Sevón, Judges; M. Mischo, Advocate-General; R. Grass,            for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
Registrar, made an order on 7 May 1998, the operative               No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of
part of which is as follows:                                        geographical indications and designations of origin under
                                                                    the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
                                                                    Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1)
                                                                    in so far as it registers the name feta' as a protected
                                                                    designation of origin Ð the Court, composed of G. C.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                    Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
                                                                    Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
                                                                    Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                    Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
2. Ireland shall pay the costs.                                     J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M.
                                                                    Ioannou, judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
                                                                    Grass, Registrar, made an order on 25 May 1998, the
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.                                             operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                    1. Case C-80/97 is referred to the Court of First Instance.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/9
2. Costs are reserved.                                               Brown Holding SA, 310 Route d'Esch, L-1471
                                                                     Luxembourg Ð application for annulment of Commission
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                              Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
                                                                     registration of geographical indications and designations
                                                                     of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
                                                                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148,
                                                                     21.6.1996, p. 1) in so far as it concerns registration of the
                                                                     name feta' as a protected designation of origin Ð the
                                                                     Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.
                                                                     Schintgen (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G. F.
                       of 25 May 1998                                Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
in Case C-81/97: MD Foods Amba and Danske Mejeriers                  Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
Fñllesorganisation v. Commission of the European                     Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola,
                        Communities (1)                              Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     25 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the
Court of First Instance for annulment of the same act Ð
Decision of the Court of First Instance declining
jurisdiction Ð Objection of inadmissibility Ð Referral of            1. Case C-81/97 is referred to the Court of First Instance.
         proceedings to the Court of First Instance)
                         (98/C 278/15)
                                                                     2. The costs are reserved.
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
In Case C-81/97: MD Foods Amba, established at Viby
(Denmark), and Danske Mejeriers Fñllesorganisation,
established at Aarhus (Denmark), acting on behalf of
1. KlùverMñlk        Amba,      established    at     Fredericia
    (Denmark),                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 25 May 1998
2. Lùgismose Produktion A/S, established at Hårby                    in Case C-82/97: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co.
    (Denmark),                                                       KG and Others v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
3. Mejeriselskabet Vesthimmerland, established at Farsù              (Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the
    (Denmark),                                                       Court of First Instance for annulment of the same act Ð
                                                                     Decision of the Court of First Instance declining
4. Nordex Food         A/S,   established   at  Dronninglund         jurisdiction Ð Objection of inadmissibility Ð Referral of
    (Denmark),                                                                proceedings to the Court of First Instance)
                                                                                (98/C 278/16)
5. Sinai Landmejeri, in the person of Gunnar Larsen,
    established at Broby (Denmark),
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
6. Sñdager       Andelsmejeri,     established     at    Hobro
    (Denmark),
                                                                     In Case C-82/97: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, established at Tettnang (Germany), Hochland Reich,
represented by G. Lett, of the Copenhagen Bar, and N.                Summer & Co. KG, established in Heimenkirch
Scandamis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service            (Germany), Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, established at
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Assa, 1 Rue                      Crailsheim (Germany), Milchwerk Geislingen eG,
Jean-Pierre Brasseur, v. Commission of the European                  established at Geislingen/Steige (Germany), Wendelstein
Communities (Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and H.                  Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co. KG,
Stùvlbñk), supported by the Hellenic Republic (Agents: I.            established at Bad Aibling (Germany), and Zentral-
Chalkias and I. Galani-Maragkoudaki), the Council of the             Molkerei Aurich GmbH, established at Aurich (Germany),
European Union (Agents: O. Petersen and J.-P. Hix) and               represented by J. Salzwedel and M. Loschelder,
Koinopraktiki Tyrokomikon Monadon Ioanninon Pindos                   Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in
AEBE, the seat of which is at Ioannina (Greece),                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue
represented by N. Korojiannakis, of he Athens Bar, with              Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                (Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker), supported


C 72/14                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.3.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                      necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                      conclusions of the Commission.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                      (1) OJ L 157, 24.6.1994, p. 33.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                      (2) OJ L 43, 20.2.1979, p. 20.
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1995
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3).                                    Removal from the register of Case C-276/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/28)
                                                                      By order of 10 November 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 29 January 1998 by the Commission of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register
             the European Communities v. Ireland                      of Case C-276/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                          (Case C-26/98)
                           (98/C 72/27)                               (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 January 1998
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hans Christian Stùvlbñk, a member of its
Legal Service, and Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-170/97 (1)
seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for                                   (98/C 72/29)
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                           removal from the register of Case C-170/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Ð declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations             (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/26/EC (1) of 15 June 1994 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC (2) of
     6 February 1979 on the approximation of the laws of
     the Member States concerning electrical equipment for
     use in potentially explosive atmospheres employing
     certain types of protection, or by failing to adopt the
     measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has                      Removal from the register of Case C-171/97 (1)
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
                                                                                (98/C 72/30)
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   removal from the register of Case C-171/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 31 March


title: Case T-196/02: Action brought on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
14.9.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 219/21
Action brought on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau against                    Moreover, the applicant alleges inadequate statement of
         Commission of the European Communities                           reasons for the decision. According to the applicant, the
                                                                          Commission did not investigate the complaint on the basis of
                                                                          Article 82 of the EC Treaty and did not provide reasons for the
                        (Case T-193/02)                                   rejection of that part of the complaint. According to the
                                                                          applicant, FIFA holds a dominant position in the market in
                                                                          football and abuses its position in the related market in services
                                                                          linked to player transfers.
                        (2002/C 219/51)
                                                                          The applicant further alleges error of assessment in that, in his
                   (Language of the case: French)                         view, FIFA’s rules do not comply with Article 81 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty and that those rules cannot benefit from an exemption
                                                                          under Article 81(3).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant also claims that the Commission infringed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Article 49 of the EC Treaty. In his view, the Commission does
European Communities on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau,                     not have the power implicitly to confer a power to lay down
residing in Nantes (France), represented by Marguerite Faucon-            rules on the awarding of diplomas on FIFA.
net, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 15 April 2002;
                                                                          Action brought on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichshafen
—     order the Commission to pay the cost.                               GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-196/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 219/52)
On 23 March 1998, the applicant lodged a complaint with the
Commission arguing that the rules applied by FIFA to players’                              (Language of the Case: German)
agents were contrary to Community law. That complaint was
registered by the Commission which then carried out a
thorough investigation. Having heard no more as to progress
on his case, the applicant on 31 January 2001 placed the
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Commission on notice and on 31 May 2001 brought an action
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
for failure to act (Case T-121/00 OJ 2001 C 227, p. 30). On
                                                                          European Communities on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichs-
3 August 2001 the Commission wrote to the applicant
informing him of its intention not to uphold his complaint.               hafen GmbH of Friedrichshafen (Germany), represented by
                                                                          F. Montag and T. Lüubig, Lawyers.
After receiving the applicant’s comments, the Commission
rejected the applicant’s complaint in view of the fact that the
most restrictive provisions were repealed after proceedings
were initiated. In the present case, the applicant contests that          The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision.
                                                                          —     annul Article 3(2) of the Commission’s Decision of
                                                                                9 April 2002 on German State aid to SKL Motoren- und
                                                                                Systembautechnik GmbH in so far as Germany is required
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,
                                                                                by those provisions to recover a sum of EUR 2,71 million
manifest error of assessment of the facts and of the law.
                                                                                (DEM 5,30 million) from MTU Motoren- und Turbinen-
According to the applicant, the Commission’s statement that
                                                                                Union Friedrichshafen GmbH;
the most restrictive of the provisions of FIFA’s rules have been
repealed is wrong. Furthermore, other aspects of the rules have
not been correctly assessed either.                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 219/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador Garcia
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-205/02)
By this action the applicant is contesting the obligation
imposed on the Federal Republic of Germany by the Com-                                         (2002/C 219/53)
mission in Article 3(2) of the contested decision to recover the
sum of EUR 2,71 million from the applicant. The applicant
claims that the Commission’s findings which led to the                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
adoption of Article 3(2) of the contested decision are in many
regards, both substantive and procedural, incorrect.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant contends that the Commission’s claim against             European Communities on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador
the applicant under State aid law is based exclusively on the          Garcia, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón Garcia
allegation that the applicant acquired certain know-how from           Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.
SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH (‘SKL-M’) under a
reciprocal licensing and cooperation agreement in 1997 for a
purchase price of DEM 6,71 million, when the actual costs              The applicant claims that the Court should:
incurred by SKL-M in developing that know-how exceeded the
sale price. The applicant merely acquired the right to use the
know-how, and the consideration it paid to SKL-M far exceeded          —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
the actual value of the know-how, so that the factual criterion              27 March 2002 refusing to grant the expatriation allow-
that the applicant must have received favourable treatment                   ance and, in consequence, the other related allowances;
under Article 87(1) EC is not met.
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant also claims that the Commission has failed to
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
show that the State was accountable for the conduct of SKL-M
in concluding the licensing and cooperation agreement or the
agreement between the applicant and SKL-M’s insolvency
administrator in 2000.                                                 The defendant in the present case contests the refusal of the
                                                                       appointing authority to grant the expatriation allowance and
                                                                       related allowances (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                       Regulations).
The applicant further contends that the applicant did not
receive favourable treatment meeting the criteria for aid              In support of her arguments, the applicant claims:
conferring a competitive advantage. Moreover the Commission
has not shown any actual or potential distortion of competition        —     manifest error of assessment of the facts inasmuch as the
on the markets on which the applicant is active, or any                      contested decision does not consider the work she did for
restriction of trade.                                                        a Delegation of an Autonomous Community in Brussels
                                                                             as ‘work done for another State’ nor the work done by
                                                                             her for the European Parliament as ‘work done for an
                                                                             international organisation’ within the meaning of the
                                                                             Staff Regulations as an exception to the reference period.
Finally the applicant claims that, by one sidedly taking
account of the unsubstantiated allegations of the insolvency           —     breach of the duty to provide reasons.
administrator, the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to assess
the facts impartially and completely.
                                                                       —     breach of the principle of equal treatment, in that the
                                                                             appointing authority treated essentially similar situations
                                                                             differently.


title: Case T-47/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch v OHIM (diegesellschafter.de) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark diegesellschafter.de — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch v OHIM (diegesellschafter.de)
   (Case T-47/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark diegesellschafter.de - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 317/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch eV (Mayence, Germany) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and A. Piltz, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2008 (Case R 1094/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign diegesellschafter.de as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch eV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102 of 1.5.2009.


title: Joined Cases C-278/07 to C-280/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co. (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Communities' financial interests — Article 3 — Recovery of an export refund — Determining the limitation period — Irregularities committed before the entry into force of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Rule on limitation forming part of the general civil law of a Member State)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co.
   (Joined Cases C-278/07 to C-280/07) (1)

   (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Communities' financial interests - Article 3 - Recovery of an export refund - Determining the limitation period - Irregularities committed before the entry into force of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Rule on limitation forming part of the general civil law of a Member State)
   (2009/C 69/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof, Germany
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Defendants: Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co. (C-278/07), Vion Trading GmbH (C-279/07), Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH (C-280/07),
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and of Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Determination of the limitation period applicable to irregularities committed before the entry into force of Regulation No 2988/95 and involving recovery of an export refund
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The limitation period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests is applicable to administrative measures such as the recovery of export refunds wrongly received by the exporter as a result of irregularities it committed.

               2)

               In situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the limitation period provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95:

                           —

                           applies to irregularities committed before the entry into force of that regulation;

                           —

                           starts to run from the date on which the irregularity at issue was committed.

               3)

               The longer limitation periods which Member States retain the possibility of applying under Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 may result from general provisions of law predating the adoption of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-275/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of 22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin

text:
2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 281/7
— Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of                 Action brought on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic
     the authority of measures: The Court of First Instance               of Germany against the Commission of the European
     misinterprets the authority of the suspension decision of                                        Communities
     27 September 1995, which linked the alleged unauthorised
     public expression only to Article 17 of the Staff Regu-
     lations and not to Articles 11 and 12 thereof.                                                 (Case C-276/99)
— Infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and the
     duty of loyalty: The applicant having stated that it was not                                   (1999/C 281/14)
     possible for him to take cognisance of a disciplinary
     sanction, even with the penalised officials enjoying the
     benefit of anonymity, it was for the Commission to                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     produce evidence demonstrating the policy followed in                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     cases of publication by a serving official without prior             Communities on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic of
     authorisation.                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
                                                                          and Claus-Dieter, Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor, of the
                                                                          Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53117 Bonn.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) annul Decision K(1999) 1123 final of the Commission of
                                                                               21 April 1999 concerning a proceeding under Article 88
                                                                               of the ECSC Treaty concerning State aid granted by
                                                                               Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-
istratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of                      (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des
                  Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-275/99)
                          (1999/C 281/13)                                 The applicant challenges the finding in the contested decision
                                                                          that Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the ECSC
                                                                          Treaty in relation to the recovery of State aid (1) Unlike the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Commission, the applicant takes the view that the bringing of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-                 court proceedings initially in respect of only 20 % of the claims
tratif de Strasbourg (Administrative Court, Strasbourg) of                in question is reasonable in order to economise on costs
22 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 23 July 1999,             and is unobjectionable even though no notarially certified
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société Adidas v                  agreement is available in respect of the remaining 80 % which
Directeur des Services Fiscaux on the following question:                 would ensure that following the delivery of a court decision
                                                                          on the partial claim, the Commission’s decision would be
                                                                          implemented without delay as regards the rest of the claim.
                                                                          The applicant further considers, unlike the Commission, that
Whether the authorisation granted to France by the Council                the decision of the Free State of Bavaria not to lodge an appeal
Decision of 28 July 1989, published in the Official Journal of            against the order for a stay of proceedings made by the
the European Communities on 16 August 1989 (1), to intro-                 Landgericht Amberg (Amberg Regional Court) does not
duce measures derogating from the Sixth Directive, excluding              infringe Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty; although the lodging of
value added tax which has been charged on expenditure in                  an appeal against an order staying proceedings was theoreti-
respect of accommodation, food, hospitality and entertainment             cally possible, it would have served no purpose in the
from the right to deduct, is disproportionate to the aim of               specific circumstances of the case and was not, therefore, an
combating tax evasion laid down in Article 27 of the Sixth                appropriate measure within the meaning of Article 86 of the
Directive.                                                                ECSC Treaty.
(1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the           (1) The aid in question is that which was the subject-matter of Joined
    French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second             Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 ant T-97/96 (judgment of the Court of
    subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC           First Instance of 21 January 1999) and of Cases C-158/95 (OJ
    on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating            C 208 of 12.8.1995, p. 4), C-399/95 (OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996, p.
    to turnover taxes (OJ L 239 of 16.8.1989, p. 21).                         5) and C-195/96 (OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996, p. 5).


title: Case T-511/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2009 — Unity OSG FZE v Council and EUPOL Afghanistan (Application for interim measures — Public procurement — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Loss of opportunity — No urgency)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/25

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2009 — Unity OSG FZE v Council and EUPOL Afghanistan
   (Case T-511/08 R) (1)

   (Application for interim measures - Public procurement - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Loss of opportunity - No urgency)
   (2009/C 82/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Unity OSG FZE (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: C. Bryant and J. McEwen, Solicitors)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Marhic and A. Vitro, Agents) and European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) (Kabul, Afghanistan)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of the decision, taken by EUPOL Afghanistan in the context of a call for tenders, to reject the applicant's tender and to award the contract for the provision of guarding and close protection services in Afghanistan to another tenderer.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-253/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission (State aid — Sale and leasing of land and a production site — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery thereof — No competitive tendering procedure — Determination of the market price — Private investor test — Effect on trade between Member States)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission
   (Case T-253/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Sale and leasing of land and a production site - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery thereof - No competitive tendering procedure - Determination of the market price - Private investor test - Effect on trade between Member States))
   (2015/C 429/19)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (Trollhättan, Sweden) (represented by: I. Otken Eriksson and U. Öberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents, assisted by L. Sandberg-Morch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2012/293/EU of 8 February 2012 on State aid SA.28809 (C 29/10) (ex NN 42/10 and ex CP 194/09) implemented by Sweden in favour of Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (OJ 2012 L 150, p. 78)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hammar Nordic Plugg AB to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case C-396/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A. M. van der Ham, A. H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Common agricultural policy — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — Reduction or discontinuance of payments in the event of non-compliance with the rules on cross-compliance — Concept of ‘intentional non-compliance’ )

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A. M. van der Ham, A. H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren v College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland
   (Case C-396/12) (1)

   ((Common agricultural policy - Financing by the EAFRD - Support for rural development - Reduction or discontinuance of payments in the event of non-compliance with the rules on cross-compliance - Concept of ‘intentional non-compliance’))
   2014/C 112/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A. M. van der Ham, A. H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren

      Defendant: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 100), of Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74), and of Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18) — Support for rural development — Reduction or discontinuance of payments in the event of non-compliance with the rules — Concept of intentional non-compliance.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The concept of ‘intentional non-compliance’ within the meaning of Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, must be interpreted as requiring an infringement of the rules on cross-compliance by a beneficiary of aid who seeks a state of non-compliance with those rules or who, without seeking such a state, accepts the possibility that it may occur. European Union law does not preclude a national provision which, like that at issue in the main proceedings, gives a high probative value to the criterion of the existence of a long-established, settled policy, in so far as the beneficiary of aid has the possibility if appropriate of adducing evidence of the lack of intent in his conduct;

               2)

               Article 67(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 and Article 23 of Regulation No 1975/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an infringement of the requirements of cross-compliance by a third party who carries out work on the instructions of a beneficiary of aid, the beneficiary may be held responsible for the infringement if he acted intentionally or negligently as a result of the choice or the monitoring of the third party or the instructions given to him, independently of the intentional or negligent nature of the conduct of the third party.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case C-683/15: Order of the President of the Court of 27 June 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 June 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-683/15) (1)

   (2017/C 300/32)
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case T-320/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt v OHIM — Castel Frères (CASTEL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark CASTEL — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility — Absolute ground for refusal not put forward before the Board of Appeal — Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt v OHIM — Castel Frères (CASTEL)
   (Case T-320/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CASTEL - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility - Absolute ground for refusal not put forward before the Board of Appeal - Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 313/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell (Castell, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Castel Frères SAS (Blanquefort, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2010 (Case R 962/2009-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell and Castel Frères SAS

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2010 (Case R 962/2009-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell;

               3.

               Orders Castel Frères SAS to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-352/07 to C-356/07, C-365/07 to C-367/07 and C-400/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, Laborati Guidotti SpA, Istituto Lusofarmaco d’Italia SpA, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico SpA, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA (C-352/07) v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), third party: Sanofi Aventis SpA, Sanofi Aventis SpA (C-353/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), IFB Stroder Srl (C-354/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Schering Plough SpA (C-355/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), third party: Baxter SpA, Bayer SpA (C-356/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute, Simesa SpA (C-365/07) v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), third party: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Italia) SpA, Abbott SpA (C-366/07) v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Baxter SpA (C-367/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), third party: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Italia) SpA, and SALF SpA (C-400/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute (Directive 89/105/EEC — Transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use — Article 4 — Price freeze — Price reduction)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, Laborati Guidotti SpA, Istituto Lusofarmaco d’Italia SpA, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico SpA, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA (C-352/07) v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), third party: Sanofi Aventis SpA, Sanofi Aventis SpA (C-353/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), IFB Stroder Srl (C-354/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Schering Plough SpA (C-355/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), third party: Baxter SpA, Bayer SpA (C-356/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute, Simesa SpA (C-365/07) v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), third party: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Italia) SpA, Abbott SpA (C-366/07) v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Baxter SpA (C-367/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), third party: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Italia) SpA, and SALF SpA (C-400/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute
   (Joined Cases C-352/07 to C-356/07, C-365/07 to C-367/07 and C-400/07) (1)

   (Directive 89/105/EEC - Transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use - Article 4 - Price freeze - Price reduction)
   2009/C 141/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, FIRMA Srl, Laboratori Guidotti SpA, Istituto Lusofarmaco d’Italia SpA, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico SpA, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA (C-352/07), Sanofi Aventis SpA (C-353/07), IFB Stroder Srl (C-354/07), Schering Plough SpA (C-355/07), Bayer Spa (C-356/07), Simesa SpA (C-365/07), Abbott SpA (C-366/07), Baxter SpA (C-367/07), SALF SpA (C-400/07)

      Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) — Price freeze imposed on medicinal products — Procedures to follow in the case of a price reduction

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is to be interpreted as meaning that, provided the requirements laid down by that provision are met, the competent authorities of a Member State may adopt general measures reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products, even if the adoption of those measures is not preceded by a freeze on those prices.

               2.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that, provided the requirements laid down by that provision are met, the adoption of measures reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products is possible more than once a year and for several years.

               3.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude measures controlling the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products from being adopted on the basis of predicted expenditure, provided that the requirements laid down by that provision are met and that the predictions are based on objective and verifiable data.

               4.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member States to determine, in compliance with the objective of transparency pursued by that directive and the requirements laid down by that provision, the criteria on the basis of which the review of the macro-economic conditions referred to in that provision is to be conducted and that those criteria may consist in pharmaceutical expenditure alone, in health expenditure overall or even in other types of expenditure.

               5.

               Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning:

                           —

                           that the Member States must, in all cases, provide for the possibility for an undertaking, which is concerned by a measure freezing or reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products, of applying for a derogation from the price imposed pursuant to such measure;

                           —

                           that they are to ensure that a reasoned decision on any such application is adopted, and

                           —

                           that the genuine participation of the undertaking concerned consists, first, in the submission of an adequate statement of the particular reasons justifying its application for derogation and, second, in the provision of detailed additional information if the information supporting the application is inadequate.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

      OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 19 May 1998 in Case C-351/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation, France): Drouot Assurances SA v Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial Sites), Protea Assurance, Groupement d'Intérêt Économique (GIE) Réunion Européenne (Brussels Convention - Interpretation of Article 21 - Lis alibi pendens - Definition of same parties - Insurance company and its insured)

text:
25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/9
and Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court,                 interpretation of Article 21 of that Convention (OJ L 304
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                    of 30.10.1978, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of
C. Gulmann, (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet                  9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho              Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                 Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ L 304 of 30.10.1978,
Edward, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,                  p. 1; amended version of the Convention, p. 77) and the
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has             Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
given a judgment on 19 May 1998, in which it:                        Hellenic Republic (OJ L 388 of 31.12.1982, p. 1) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
1. Declares that, by classifying as special protection areas
                                                                     Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,
     territories whose number and total area are clearly
                                                                     Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     smaller than the number and total area of the
                                                                     Principal Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
     territories suitable for classification as special
                                                                     judgment on 19 May 1998, in which it has ruled:
     protection areas within the meaning of Article 4(1) of
     Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
     conservation of wild birds, the Kingdom of the
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under          Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
     that directive;                                                 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
                                                                     and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention
                                                                     of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                  Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
     costs;                                                          Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of
                                                                     25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its                Republic, is not applicable in the case of two actions for
     own costs.                                                      contribution to general average, one brought by the
                                                                     insurer of the hull of a vessel which has foundered against
                                                                     the owner and the insurer of the cargo which the vessel
(1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.                                            was carrying when it sank, the other brought by the latter
                                                                     two parties against the owner and the charterer of the
                                                                     vessel, unless it is established that, with regard to the
                                                                     subject-matter of the two disputes, the interests of the
                                                                     insurer of the hull of the vessel are identical to and
                                                                     indissociable from those of its insured, the owner and the
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                charterer of that vessel.
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
                       of 19 May 1998
in Case C-351/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation, France): Drouot Assurances SA v
Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial
Sites), Protea Assurance, Groupement d'InteÂreÃt EÂcono-
             mique (GIE) ReÂunion EuropeÂenne (1)
(Brussels Convention Ð Interpretation of Article 21 Ð Lis                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
alibi pendens Ð Definition of same parties Ð Insurance                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                   company and its insured)
                                                                                of 28 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/16)
                                                                     in Case C-7/95 P: John Deere Ltd v Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Admissibility Ð Question of law Ð Question
                                                                     of fact Ð Competition Ð Information exchange system Ð
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     Restriction of competition Ð Refusal to grant an
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                exemption)
In Case C-351/96: reference to the Court, pursuant to the                                    (98/C 234/17)
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil                           (Language of the case: English)
and Commercial Matters, by the Cour de Cassation,
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Drouot Assurances SA               In Case C-7/95 P: John       Deere Ltd, a company whose
and Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial            registered office is in      Edinburgh (United Kingdom),
Sites),     Protea    Assurance,     Groupement       d'InteÂreÃt    represented by Hans-Jörg     Niemeyer and Rainer Bechtold,
EÂconomique (GIE) ReÂunion EuropeÂenne Ð on the                      Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,    with an address for service in


title: Case C-133/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/20

         Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-133/05)
   (2005/C 143/29)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt by 2 December 2003 all/the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, at the federal level as regards the provisions on discrimination on the grounds of disability, and at the regional level — with the exception of the regions of Vienna and Lower Austria — as regards all provisions of the directive, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive.

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Republic of Austria has failed to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Directive at federal level in relation to the provisions concerning discrimination on the grounds of disability, and has altogether failed, with the exception of the regions of Vienna and Lower Austria, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the directive at regional level or, in any event, has failed to communicate them to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ L 303, 02.12.2000, p. 16.