title: Case C-445/03: Action brought on 21 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

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


title: Case T-147/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/38

         Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-147/15)
   (2015/C 213/63)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Očková and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision BUDG/B/3/RDL D(15)217973 of 20 January 2015 refusing the application for release from the obligation to provide own resources in the sum of CZK 5 3 9 76  340,00 in accordance with Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 (1);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 17(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 1150/2000

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this connection that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed Article 17(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 1150/2000, in that it incorrectly came to the conclusion that the Czech Republic had not taken all the necessary measures for providing an amount of EU own resources to the Commission, and in that it requires provision of an amount which could not be excluded on grounds which were not attributable to the Czech Republic.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights of defence of the Czech Republic

                           —

                           The applicant submits on this point that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights of defence of the Czech Republic, in that it did not enable the Czech Republic to express its point of view purposefully and effectively.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 21 March 1996 in the case of E. F. Liebelt GmbH & Co KG v. Marianne Seidel (Case C-204/96)

text:
No C 247/6               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24 . 8 . 96
corresponding to the references as at 30 March 1992                         2 . In the abovementioned Long-term Plan , the principles of
multiplied by the 2,15 % rate of refund , this may only take                      self-sufficiency and proximity find specific expression in
place in parallel with an across-the-board reduction in                           the pursuit of the best possible quality method of
reference quantities of the order of 2,35 % . As a result of                      disposal ( including recovery ) and continuity of disposal .
that operation , most producers who were previously                               Does this constitute a correct implementation of those
entitled to the removal of the reduction of 2,15 % occurring                      principles ?
during the eighth period will ultimately be faced not with the
reconstitution of their reference quantities but with their                 3 . ( a ) In so far as the criteria laid down in the Long-term
further reduction . It is clear from the wording of texts                               Plan for objecting to the export of waste for
published by the Ministry of Agriculture that the reduction                             recovery are in themselves acceptable, is this then a
operation was designed as a correcting mechanism to                                     case of a measure having equivalent effect within
neutralize the intended effect of Article 2 of Regulation                               the meaning of Article 34 of the EC Treaty, and is
No 1637/91 , that is to say , the reconstitution , to a level of                        there any justification for it ?
100% , of the reference quantities of most producers .
                                                                                ( b ) In that context, if the principles of self-sufficiency
                                                                                and proximity may be applied in regard to waste
(') OJ No L 150 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 30 .                                              intended for recovery , does it make any difference
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 176 .                                whether those principles are applied primarily
                                                                                within the Community as a whole or exclusively at
                                                                                national level ?
                                                                            4 . Are the exclusive rights to incinerate dangerous waste
                                                                                conferred by the Netherlands authority on AVR Chemie
                                                                                CV in Sectoral Plan 10 of Part II of the Long-term Plan
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse                           compatible with Article 90 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) in conjunction
Raad van State, by order of that court of 23 April 1996 in                        with Article 86 of the EC Treaty , having regard to the
the case of 1 . Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV, 2 .                         reasons given for such conferral in the Long-term
Factron Technik GmbH and 3 . Dusseldorp Lichtenvoorde                             Plan ?
BV v. Minister for Housing, Town and Country Planning
                          and Conservation                                  (') O ) No L 30 , 1993 , p . 1 .
                           ( Case C-203 /96 )                               ( 2 ) OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 47 .
                                                                            C ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p . 32 .
                             ( 96/C 247/ 10 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Nederlandse
Raad van State ( Council of State of the Netherlands ) of
23 April 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
14 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 .                  Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 21 March
Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV, 2 . Factron Technik                   1996 in the case of E. F. Liebelt GmbH & Co KG v.
GmbH and 3 . Dusseldorp Lichtenvoorde BV v. Minister for                                              Marianne Seidel
Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation on                                               ( Case C-204/96 )
the following questions:
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/ 11 )
1 . ( a ) Having regard to the scheme of Regulation ( EEC )
            No 259/93 ( 1 ) of 1 February 1993 on the                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            supervision and control of shipments of wastes                  European Communities by an order of the Eighth Senate of
            within , into and out of the European Community                 the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court ) of
            and Directive 75/442/EFC ( 2 ) of 15 July 1975 on               21 March 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
            waste , as amended by Directive 91 / 156/EEC ( '),              on 1 7 June 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of E. F.
            read in conjunction with each other, do the                     Liebelt GmbH & Co KG v. Marianne Seidel on the
            principles of self-sufficiency and proximity apply              following questions :
            solely to the shipment between Member States of
            waste for disposal or also to waste for recovery ?              1 . Is there an undertaking, business or part of a business
                                                                                within the meaning of Council Directive 77/ 1 87/EEC of
      ( b ) If the Court of Justice takes the view that                           14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of
            Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 and Directive                            the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
            75/442/EEC do not provide a basis for the                             employees' rights in the event of transfers of
            application of the principles of self-sufficiency and                 undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses ( '), on
            proximity to the shipment between Member States                       the part of the awarder of the contract or the contractor,
            of waste for recovery , can Article 130t of the EC                    if an employer does not himself perform certain
            Treaty then provide a basis for rules such as those                   activities which can be carried out only in his business
            contained in the relevant part of the Long-term Plan                  but has them done , on the basis of a service contract or
            for Disposal of Dangerous Waste of June 1993                          contract for services , by a third party who engages the
            drawn up by the Netherlands Government ?                              necessary employees and is their employer ?
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/7
2 . Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether the              The Commission claims that the Court should :
     undertaking which is awarded the contract, as well as
     pursuing its activity on the awarder's premises, is still       — declare that by failing, within the prescribed time-limit,
     using assets which have been made available to it by the             to enact the laws, regulations and administrative
     awarder ?                                                            measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                          92/42/EEC of 21 May 1 992 ( 1 ) on efficiency
3 . May it depend on what type the assets made available by               requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid
     the awarder of the contract are ? Can it be decisive                 or gaseous fuels, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     whether fully equipped units ( for example, a functioning            fulfil its obligations under the Treaty ,
     kitchen ) or assets of a subsidiary nature ( for example,
     consumables ) are made available ?                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
4 . Is it necessary, for there to be a part of a business , that
     the contractor forms a specific business organization to        Pleas in laiv and main arguments adduced in support:
     perform the contract ?
                                                                     The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 1 89 of
5 . May it be relevant whether the awarder of the contract           the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
     has had influence on the organization of the contractor         necessary measures to implement directives which are
     and in particular on the number and selection of the            addressed to them before the expiry of the period allotted to
     employees employed to perform the contract ?                    them for that purpose . The period in question expired on
                                                                      1 January 1993 , without the Kingdom of Belgium having
6 . May the existence of the part of a business and with the         adopted the necessary measures .
     contract for services, because the previous contractor no
     longer has anything to carry out as a business ?                (') OJ No L 167, 1992 , p . 17 .
7. Is there a legal transfer of an undertaking, business or
     part of a business within the meaning of the Directive if
     the hospital authority terminates the contract for
     services which it has concluded with a cleaning
     undertaking and on the basis of a new invitation to
     tender concludes a new contract for services with
                                                                     Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the
     another cleaning undertaking for the performance of the
                                                                         European Communities against the Italian Republic
     cleaning work in the hospital ? May there in that case be
     a legal transfer even if no tangible and no intangible                                   ( Case C-207/96 )
     assets are transferred ?                                                                   ( 96/C 247/ 13 )
8 . Does it depend on whether the new invitation to tender
     has taken place because the previous contractor did not         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    perform the work properly with his employees ( poor              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     performance ) or whether the new invitation to tender is        19 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
     intended to achieve a reduction of costs ?                      Communities , represented by Marie Wolfcarius of its Legal
                                                                     Service and Enrico Altieri , Magistrato di Cassazione
                                                                     seconded to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
(') OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 .                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                     Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     1 . declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
Action brought on 18 June 1996 by the Commission of the                   period the laws, regulations and administrative
European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                        Case C-205 /96 )                                  76/207/EEC ( 1 ) of 9 February 1976 on the
                                                                          implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                         ( 96/C 247/ 12 )                                 men and women as regards access to employment,
                                                                          vocational training and promotion , and working
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                      conditions, and by maintaining in force within its own
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                legal system rules prohibiting night-work for women,
18 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                           contrary to Article 5 of that Directive , the Italian
Communities, represented by R. Wainwright and J.-F .                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                Community law ;
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, a member
of the Commission 's legal service, Wagner Centre ,                 2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
Kirchberg .                                                               proceedings .


title: Case C-93/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Lativa) lodged on 28 February 2008 — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Lativa) lodged on 28 February 2008 — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-93/08)
   (2008/C 128/37)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   Referring court
   Augstākās tiesas Senāts
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schenker SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   Question referred
   Must Article 11 of Regulation No 1383/2003 (1) be interpreted as precluding the possibility of imposing a penalty on the declarant or owner of goods under the national law, where the intellectual property right-holder (the right-holder) reaches an agreement, with the declarant or the owner of those goods, to abandon them for their destruction, or engages in discussions in respect of the possibility of the goods being abandoned for their destruction, and in the course of that procedure, the customs authorities receive information that the goods are counterfeit?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7).


title: Case T-826/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/52

         Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission
   (Case T-826/16)
   (2017/C 022/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luis Javier Casasnovas Bernad (Saint-Dominique, Dominican Republic) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare and order

               —

               that the decision of 27 September 2016 terminating the applicant’s contract is annulled;

               —

               that the Commission is to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Article 3(3) of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2011 is inapplicable.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in that the authority competent to conclude contracts of employment (AECC) renewed the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period while providing for a termination clause based on the occurrence of an event which may be assimilated to termination.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care in that, firstly, the AECC terminated the applicant’s contract before taking a decision on the renewal of his leave on personal grounds, secondly, it acted thus without even making an initial offer of reinstatement to him and, thirdly, nor did it inform him whether it was possible under the budget to pay him at the end of his leave.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 12b and 40(1a) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union by the AECC.


title: Case T-338/03: Action brought on 25 September 2003 by Eridania Sadam S.p.A. and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.11.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 289/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Sadam S.p.A. and Others, represented by Gualtiero Pittalis,
                                                                            Ivano Vigliotti, Gian Michele Roberti, Paolo Ziotti and Alessan-
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the               dra Franchi, against the Commission of the European Com-
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                munities.
      Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2003 (Case R 348/2002-
      4) in so far as if concluded that trade mark No 1 575 521
      does not satisfy the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) and              The applicants claim that the Court should:
      (c) of Regulation No 40/94;
                                                                            —     annul Article 1(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
—     order publication of Community trade mark                                   1158/2003 of 30 June 2003 fixing the derived inter-
      no 1 575 521 under Article 40 of Regulation No 40/94;                       vention price for white sugar for the 2003/04 marketing
                                                                                year for all areas in Italy;
—     in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of
      Appeal for determination;
                                                                            —     in the alternative, declare under Article 241 EC that
                                                                                Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                       19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the
                                                                                markets in the sugar sector is unlawful and inapplicable;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Community trade mark            Word mark ‘EUROPREMIUM’ —
sought:                         application no 1 575 521
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Goods or services:              Goods and services in Classes 16,
                                20, 35 and 39 (including paper,
                                goods made of wood, advertising             By the present action, the applicant companies challenge
                                and transport and storage)                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1158/2003 of 30 June 2003
                                                                            fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the
Decision appealed to the        Refusal by the examiner to register         2003/04 marketing year (‘the contested regulation’) (1). In
Board of Appeal:                                                            support of their action the applicants raise the pleas in law set
                                                                            out below.
Decision of the Board of        Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
                                                                            First, the applicants submit that, in several respects, the
Pleas in law:                   —    the trade mark is sufficiently         contested regulation is in conflict with the basic regulation
                                     distinctive                            adopted by the Council in the form of Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (2).
                                —    there is no need to preserve
                                     the availability of the mark
                                     as it is not descriptive               In particular, the applicants complain that the contested
                                                                            regulation erroneously classifies Italy as a ‘deficit area’ for the
                                                                            supply of sugar, thereby applying the system of derived prices
                                                                            (known as ‘Regionalisation’) to Italy. That classification, based,
                                                                            in the applicants’ view, on an incorrect analysis of the
                                                                            economic situation, prejudices them in so far as the introduc-
                                                                            tion of derived prices results in an increase in the production
                                                                            costs for sugar undertakings operating in Italy. In particular,
Action brought on 25 September 2003 by Eridania Sadam                       according to the applicants, when assessing Italian domestic
S.p.A. and Others against the Commission of the European                    supply, the Commission failed to take account of the quantities
                            Communities                                     of white sugar imported free of duty from the Balkan countries.
                                                                            Those imports significantly alter the conditions in which the
                          (Case T-338/03)                                   common organisation of the market functions bringing about
                                                                            significant imbalances which appear more serious following
                                                                            the application of regionalisation to the Italian market.
                          (2003/C 289/68)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         The applicants therefore consider that Article 1(c) of the
                                                                            contested regulation is both flawed in terms of its assumptions
                                                                            and potentially contrary in its effects to the Community
                                                                            principles on which the common agricultural policy is based,
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of                 the WTO rules relating to sugar and the principles of
the European Communities on 25 September 2003 by Eridania                   proportionality and non-discrimination.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/34              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
In the event that the Court does not make the declaration                 —     annul the decision of the Commission of 1 October 2003
primarily sought against the contested regulation, the appli-                   fixing the new organigram of DG ESTAT in so far as it
cants seek in the alternative a declaration from the Court that                 does not thereby constitute a reassignment of the appli-
Article 2 of Regulation No 1260/2001 is unlawful and                            cant where another individual reassignment measure is
inapplicable in so far as it enables the Commission when                        ordered in addition;
setting the derived intervention price on the basis of market
trends to disregard the effect of unrestricted imports free of            —     order the Commission to pay her EUR 25 000 by way of
duty.                                                                           compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a
                                                                                result of irregular conduct;
Second, the applicants assert that the statement of reasons for           —     order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
the contested regulation appears inadequate and contradictory
given that, by that measure, the Commission has altered its
own practice of preceding years — inasmuch as Italy was not
included in the States covered by regionalisation — without
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
any objective justification for that change and without taking
account of the specific situation arising from the abovemen-
tioned imports free of duty of white sugar from the Balkans.
                                                                          The applicant, a Commission official, was transferred on
                                                                          16 January 2003 to Eurostat as Director of the Social Statistics
                                                                          Directorate. On 9 July 2003, in view of the serious irregularities
Third, and in the alternative, the applicants submit that even            which allegedly took place in Eurostat, the Commission
without taking account of the imports free of duty of white
                                                                          decided to move all Eurostat’s directors, including the appli-
sugar from the Balkans in assessing domestic supply, the                  cant, to posts as Principal Advisers. On 1 October 2003, the
Commission should not deemed Italy to be a ‘deficit area’.                Commission decided on a new structure for the reformed DG
                                                                          ESTAT departments and decided that, in principle, it would
                                                                          open applications for the posts in the new directorates to both
(1) OJ L 162 of 1.7.2003, p. 24.
                                                                          external and internal applicants, without taking account of the
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the
    common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ            applicant. The applicant contests both those decisions claiming
    L 178 of 30.6.2001, p. 1).                                            that the alleged irregularities within Eurostat took place until
                                                                          2001 at the latest, while she was not posted there until 2003
                                                                          and was thus not involved in them. In support of her
                                                                          application, she alleges infringement of Articles 4, 7, 24, 25
                                                                          and 47 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of
                                                                          equal treatment and of prohibition of discrimination, the
                                                                          principle of sound administration, the principles ‘audi alteram
                                                                          partem’ and ‘patere legem’, manifest error of assessment, abuse
                                                                          of process and misuse of powers.
Action brought on 6 October 2003 by Gabrielle Clotuche
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-339/03)
                         (2003/C 289/69)
                                                                          Action brought on 2 October 2003 by Wanadoo Inter-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         active S.A. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-340/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                (2003/C 289/70)
European Communities on 6 October 2003 by Gabrielle
Clotuche, residing in Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul Van
Gehuchten, Gilbert Demez Jacques Sambon, lawyers.                                             (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 9 July 2003 to              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      reassign the applicant by transfer in the interest of the           European Communities on 2 October 2003 by Wanadoo
      service from her post as Director of the Social Statistics          Interactive S.A., whose registered office is in Issy-les-Mou-
      Directorate at Eurostat to a post as Principal Adviser at           lineaux (France), represented by O.W. Brouwer, H. Calvet,
      Eurostat;                                                           M. Pittie and J. Philippe, lawyers.


title: Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Liliane Waerzeggers against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-36/97)

text:
No C 142/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Anne-Marie                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Mathieu against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                          ( Case T-34/97 )                             Case T- 16/97 (').
                           ( 97/C 142/38 )
                                                                       (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27 .
                  (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 24 February
1997 by Anne-Marie Mathieu, residing in Brussels,                      Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Liliane
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Waerzeggers against the Commission of the European
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                                                 Communities
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                                ( Case T-36/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        ( 97/C 142/40 )
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                       (Language of the case: French)
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                     1997 by Liliane Waerzeggers, residing in Holsbeek
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 (').                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
(>) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                       consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                            ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                            adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
                                                                            expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Rupert
Schlegelmilch against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                               — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                          ( Case T-35 /97 )
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 142/39 )
                  (Language of the case: French)                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                       Case T- 16/97 ( M.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
1997 by Rupert Schlegelmilch, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                       Action brought on 26 February 1997 by Lucette Gerard
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                                                 ( Case T-38/97)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                                 ( 97/C 142/41 )
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                     An action against the Commission of the European
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 26 February
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                             1997 by Lucette Gerard, residing in Brussels, represented


title: Case T-410/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Vitaminaqua v OHIM — Energy Brands (vitaminaqua) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua — Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER — Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Vitaminaqua v OHIM — Energy Brands (vitaminaqua)
   (Case T-410/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua - Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER - Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 15/20
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Vitaminaqua Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Németh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Energy Brands, Inc. (Whitestone, United States of America) (represented by: S. Malynicz, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 997/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands Inc. and Vitaminaqua Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vitaminaqua Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case C-300/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2006 — Ursula Voß v Land Berlin, Other party to the proceedings: The representative of the national interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2006 — Ursula Voß v Land Berlin, Other party to the proceedings: The representative of the national interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   (Case C-300/06)
   (2006/C 249/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ursula Voß

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Other party to the proceedings: The representative of the national interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Question referred
   Does Article 141 EC preclude national legislation under which remuneration for additional work which takes place outside of normal working hours is paid at the same rate with regard to full-time as well as part-time public servants and that rate is lower than the pro-rata remuneration allotted to full-time public servants as regards a period of equal length within normal working hours if it is predominantly women who are employed part-time?


title: Case T-166/17: Action brought on 8 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/39

         Action brought on 8 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission
   (Case T-166/17)
   (2017/C 151/50)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the request made by the European Commission to ΕΚΕΤΑ to reimburse the amount of EUR 197 799,52 of the payment received by it for the SENSATION project, that request being made in the debit note 3241615291/29.11.2016, is unfounded with respect to the sum of EUR 191 039,55;

               —

               declare that the sum of EUR 191 039,55 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the European Commission, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615291/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the SENSATION project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the SENSATION project, a sum of EUR 197 799,52. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.

               2.

               In that context, the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that, out of the above amount stated in the debit note, the sum of EUR 191 039,55 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the Commission.

               3.

               ΕΚΕΤΑ maintains that the above amount of EUR 191 039,55 constitutes eligible staff costs, subcontracting costs and indirect costs, which the Commission wrongly rejected as being ineligible. The eligibility of the applicant’s costs is demonstrated by the evidence that it submitted to the European Commission at the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and that it submits to the General Court.


title: Case C-190/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — European Union water policy — River basin management plans — Publication — Failure to notify the European Commission)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-190/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - European Union water policy - River basin management plans - Publication - Failure to notify the European Commission))
   (2015/C 007/15)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and M. Wolff, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to publish the final river basin management plans by 22 December 2009 at the latest and by failing to send a copy of those plans to the Commission by 22 March 2010 at the latest, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1), (2) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-32/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n o 1 de Alicante y n o 1 de Marca Comunitaria — Spain) — Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL, Acierta Product Position SA (Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community designs — Articles 14 and 88 — Proprietor of the right to the Community design — Unregistered design — Commissioned design)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Alicante y no 1 de Marca Comunitaria — Spain) — Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL, Acierta Product Position SA
   (Case C-32/08) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Articles 14 and 88 - Proprietor of the right to the Community design - Unregistered design - Commissioned design)
   2009/C 205/11
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Alicante y no 1 de Marca Comunitaria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA)

      Defendants: Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL, Acierta Product Position SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Alicante y no 1 de Marca Comunitaria — Interpretation of Articles 14(1) and (3) and 88(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) — Proprietor of the rights — Right vesting in the employer or in the employed designer — Definitions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs does not apply to Community designs that have been produced as a result of a commission.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 14(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to the Community design vests in the designer, unless it has been assigned by way of contract to his successor in title.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-253/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division), United Kingdom) — Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption — Services linked to sport — Services supplied to persons taking part in sport — Services supplied to unincorporated associations and to corporate persons — Included — Conditions)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division), United Kingdom) — Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-253/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Services linked to sport - Services supplied to persons taking part in sport - Services supplied to unincorporated associations and to corporate persons - Included - Conditions)
   (2008/C 313/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education — Meaning of ‘persons taking part in sport or physical education’ — Scope of persons covered
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13A(1)(m) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of persons taking part in sport, it includes services supplied to corporate persons and to unincorporated associations, provided that — which it is for the national court to establish — those services are closely linked and essential to sport, that they are supplied by non-profit-making organisations and that their true beneficiaries are persons taking part in sport;

               2.

               The expression ‘certain services closely linked to sport’, in Article 13A(1)(m) of Sixth Directive 77/388, does not allow the Member States to limit the exemption under that provision by reference to the recipients of the services in question.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-290/02: Action brought on 24 September 2002 by Associazione Consorzi Tessili — ASCONTEX against Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/33
Action brought on 24 September 2002 by Associazione                       In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges, first, breach
Consorzi Tessili — ASCONTEX against Commission of                         of the duty to provide reasons. According to the applicant, the
                  the European Communities                                Commission never carried out the investigation required under
                                                                          Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1), which is
                                                                          applicable in the present case. Thus, the Commission did not
                          (Case T-290/02)                                 invite Italy to submit its comments despite the fact that
                                                                          financial assistance was granted with the support of the Italian
                                                                          Government. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the
                         (2002/C 289/61)                                  Commission failed to reply to its proposals to make changes
                                                                          to the project. The applicant further states that the Commission
                                                                          has not adopted a decision on the eligibility of the expenditure
                   (Language of the case: French)                         incurred by it in relation to the project. According to the
                                                                          applicant, the Commission was in full possession of all the
                                                                          information in that regard.
                                                                          The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of legitimate
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          expectations. According to the applicant, the Commission has
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 2002 by Associa-                     not challenged the eligibility of the expenditure incurred by
                                                                          the applicant.
zione Consorzi Tessili — ASCONTEX, whose registered office
is at Milan (Italy), represented by Patrick Mbaya and Laurent
Denis, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The last plea in law put forward by the applicant alleges breach
                                                                          of the principle of legal certainty. According to the applicant,
                                                                          the Commission has rejected the expenditure claimed by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               applicant for lack of certification whereas it had never made
                                                                          any such observation previously. Moreover, the applicant
                                                                          states that certification for expenditure must be submitted with
—     annul the decision of 12 July 2002 withdrawing financial            the final report for the project.
      assistance from the applicant for the ASCONTEX IBEX
      EURESPRIT project;
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
—     declare that the advance of EUR 200 000 is not to be                     laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
      repaid;
                                                                               different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                               operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
—     annul in part, in the alternative, the decision of 12 July               existing financial instruments (JO L 374, p. 1).
      2002 withdrawing financial assistance from the applicant
      for the ASCONTEX IBEX EURESPRIT project;
—     declare that the advance of EUR 200 000 is to be repaid
      to the Commission only after the latter adopts a decision
      on the eligibility of the expenditure submitted and on the
      proportion of that not used by the applicant;
                                                                          Action brought on 17 September 2002 by González
                                                                          y Díez S.A. against the Commission of the European
—     order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.                                             Communities
                                                                                (Case T-291/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       (2002/C 289/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant is a member of the Italian association of textile
manufacturers. It received from the Commission financial
assistance for an international salon exhibition in the textile
and clothing sector. The salon was to be held in Capri.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 17 September 2002 by the under-
In the contested decision, the Commission withdraws its                   taking González y Díez S.A., Villabona-Llanera (Asturias,
financial assistance and seeks repayment of the advance already           Spain), represented by J. Folguera Crespo, A. Martínez Sánchez
paid.                                                                     and J.C. Engra Moreno, lawyers.


C 161/12              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-237/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-344/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/22)                                                       (2001/C 161/25)
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-237/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-344/99: Italian Republic v Com-
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                     mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-120/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-359/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/23)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/26)
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
the register of Case C-120/00: Commission of the European             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Communities v French Republic.                                        from the register of Case C-359/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Foix and l’Ariège,
                                                                      France): Réunion des Assureurs Maladie v Jean-Marc Laboup.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/95 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/24)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-21/00 (1)
By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of                                      (2001/C 161/27)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-182/95: (reference for a preliminary      By order of 13 March 2001 the President of the Court of
ruling from Finanzgericht Hamburg): T. Port GmbH & Co v               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.                                           from the register of Case C-21/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa): Hamadeh Adnan v
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.                                            Sociétà Fiat Sava SpA.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case C-269/08: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/34

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-269/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/65

      Language of the case: Maltese

   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-30/03: Commission of the European Communities v Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC) (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract — Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default)

text:
29.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 289/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 July 2003
                        of 16 October 2003                                   in Case C-297/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal):
                                                                             Sicilcassa Spa v IRA Costruzioni SpA, Francesco Gaetano
in Case C-30/03: Commission of the European Communi-                         Restivo Graci and Others, and between Francesco Gaet-
ties v Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária                       ano Restivo Graci and Others and IRA Costruzioni SpA,
                               (ITEC) (1)                                    Amministrazione straordinaria della Holding personale
                                                                                Graci Gaetano, Sicilcassa SpA (1)
                                                                             (State aid — Articles 87 EC and 88 EC — New aid —
(Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                             Absence of prior notification — Aid incompatible with the
    Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default)
                                                                             common market — Withdrawal of aid — Transitional
                                                                              arrangements maintaining the effect of the withdrawn aid)
                          (2003/C 289/20)                                                               (2003/C 289/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-297/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Tribunale di Catania (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                             proceedings pending before that court between Sicilcassa Spa
                                                                             and IRA Costruzioni SpA, Francesco Gaetano Restivo Graci
In Case C-30/03, Commission of the European Communities                      and Others, and between Francesco Gaetano Restivo Graci and
(Agents: G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito) v Instituto Tecnoló-               Others and IRA Costruzioni SpA, Amministrazione straordina-
gico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC), a private establishment               ria della Holding personale Graci Gaetano, Sicilcassa SpA on the
established in Lisbon (Portugal): Application by the Com-                    interpretation of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, the Court (Fifth
mission under Article 238 EC to recover EUR 26 105,97                        Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of
advanced by it to the defendant in relation to performance of                the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
Contract No PRO 036, together with default interest, the Court               S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
(Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of                 R. Grass, Registrar, the national court having been informed
the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rappor-                     that the Court proposes to give its decision by reasoned order
teur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              pursuant to Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the persons
has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:                        referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice
                                                                             having been invited to submit any observations they may have
                                                                             on that proposal, has made an order on 24 July 2003, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
      to repay to the Commission of the European Communities the
      sum of EUR 26 105,97, together with default interest at the            1.    Transitional rules such as those laid down by Article 106 of
      rate prescribed by Luxembourg law, calculated in accordance                  Legislative Decree No 270/99 of 8 July 1999 introducing new
      with the provisions of the Grand-Ducal Regulations of 21 Janu-               rules on the special administration of large insolvent firms, which
      ary and 22 December 2000, 21 January 2002 and 24 January                     maintain the effects of a new State aid scheme which has not been
      2003, until the debt is paid in full;                                        notified to the Commission and has been declared incompatible
                                                                                with Community law, in themselves constitute a new State aid
                                                                                scheme within the meaning of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
2.    Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
      to pay the costs.                                                      2.    The questions asking for the Court’s assessment of the compati-
                                                                                bility with the common market of transitional rules such as
                                                                                those laid down by Article 106 of Legislative Decree No 270/
                                                                                99 are inadmissible.
(1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Case C-601/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014  — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/7

         Action brought on 22 December 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-601/14)
   (2015/C 089/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures to guarantee the existence of a scheme on compensation to victims of all violent intentional crimes committed in its territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC (1);

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Directive 2004/80/EC institutes a system of cooperation between the authorities of the Member States to facilitate the access of victims of crime throughout the European Union to appropriate compensation in cross-border situations. The system operates on the basis of Member States’ schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories. To ensure that system of cooperation is fully operational, Article 12(2) of that directive requires the Member States to have or to introduce a scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories which guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to victims. That obligation must be understood as referring to all violent intentional crimes and not as referring to only some of them.
   Italian law makes provision for a national scheme on compensation to crime victims which consists of a series of special laws on compensation for certain violent intentional crimes, but does not make provision for a general compensation scheme which covers victims of all crimes identified and categorised by the Italian Penal Code as violent intentional crimes. In particular, Italian law does not provide a scheme on compensation for violent intentional crimes which are forms of ‘common crime’ not covered by those special laws.
   Consequently, it must be stated that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC.

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).


title: Case C-453/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 — Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing a watch — Refusal of registration — Lack of distinctiveness)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/4

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 — Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-453/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark representing a watch - Refusal of registration - Lack of distinctiveness)
   2012/C 303/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Timehouse GmbH (represented by: V. Knies, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse v OHIM (Shape of a watch with scalloped edges), by which the General Court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 0492/2009-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch — Lack of distinctiveness

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Timehouse GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case F-26/08: Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Buendía Sierra v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/34

         Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Buendía Sierra v Commission
   (Case F-26/08)
   (2008/C 116/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José Luis Buendía Sierra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of 11 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant a single additional priority point in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of two priority points and a grand total of 21 points and implicitly refusing his promotion in the 2003 Promotion procedure, and an order that the defendant pay compensation.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 11 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant a single additional priority point in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of two priority points and a grand total of 21 points and implicitly refusing his promotion in the 2003 Promotion procedure, and order the defendant to pay compensation;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 5 000;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/3

         (2007/C 223/02)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

      OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

      OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

      OJ C 140, 23.6.2007

      OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

      OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-257/02: Action brought on 27 August 2002 by "K" against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
9.11.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 274/27
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’ against the                       Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus
       Court of Justice of the European Communities                                   Boukes against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-258/02)
                         (Case T-257/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/49)
                         (2002/C 274/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          10 September 2002 by Hendrikus Boukes, domiciled in
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                    Waldbredimus (Luxembourg), represented by Eric Boigelot,
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance                lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’,
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:                   European Parliament, Julian Priestley, on 4 January 2002
                                                                                dismissing the applicant’s request of 4 October 2001
                                                                                concerning the recognition of his marriage by the AIPN;
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
      14 May 2002, notified 27 May 2002, concerning the
      claim for compensation for non-material loss and damage             —     annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
      of any kind suffered by the applicant as a result of disease;             plaint, brought in accordance with Article 90(2) of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations on 27 February 2002 and registered on
                                                                                1 March 2002, to which the European Parliament has
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of                       still not replied.
      compensation for the damage she has suffered and will
      in future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all            —     in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.
      necessary reservations, together with default interest at
      the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
      the date of payment;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal by the
                                                                          AIPN to take account of the formalisation of his partnership,
                                                                          treated as a civil marriage under Netherlands law and which
                                                                          legally records and recognises the family life that he leads in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the context of a stable relationship with his partner, for the
                                                                          purpose of having it treated in the same way as marriage under
                                                                          the Staff Regulations.
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate her for the non-
material damage allegedly suffered as a result of her occu-               In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims:
pational disease, which has been recognised on the basis of
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and for which she has                 —     breach of Article F(1), and (2) of the Treaty on the
received compensation.                                                          European Union and Article 3(2) EC;
                                                                          —     breach of Article 1a(1) and the second paragraph of
                                                                                Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the provisions
The pleas in law put forward in support of this action are                      of the Staff Regulations governing remuneration and
similar to those put forward in Case T-255/02 H v Court of                      reimbursement of expenses, allowances and pension
Justice.                                                                        scheme;
                                                                          —     breach of Articles 7, 9 and 21 of the Charter of
                                                                                Fundamental Rights of the European Union;


title: Case T-206/11: Action brought on 4 April 2011 — COMPLEX v OHIM — Kajometal (KX)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/14

         Action brought on 4 April 2011 — COMPLEX v OHIM — Kajometal (KX)
   (Case T-206/11)
   2011/C 194/22
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: COMPLEX S.A. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, legal adviser)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kajometal s.r.o. (Dolny Kubin, Slovakia)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action to be well founded;

               —

               annul the decision delivered by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on 21 January 2011 in Case R 864/2010-2;

               —

               replace the contested decision by a decision refusing registration of the mark KX, No 61225405;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kajometal s.r.o.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark KX for goods in Class 7

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark CX, No 3 588 241, registered for goods in Class 7, Community figurative mark CX PRECISION BEARINGS, No 397 932 , registered for goods in Class 7

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion as between the conflicting marks.

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