title: Case C-101/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Herbert Schaible v Land Baden-Württemberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 — System for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals — Obligation of individual electronic identification — Obligation to keep a holding register — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom to conduct a business — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Herbert Schaible v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-101/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 - System for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals - Obligation of individual electronic identification - Obligation to keep a holding register - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 367/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Herbert Schaible

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Validity of Articles 3(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 9(3), first subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (OJ 2004 L 5, p. 8), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1560/2007 of 17 December 2007 (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 25), from the point of view of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 15(1) and 16 — Proportionality of the system of individual identification of ovine and caprine animals

      Operative part of the judgment

   The consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 3(1), 4(2), 5(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) and point B(2) of the Annex to Council Regulation No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 933/2008 of 23 September 2008.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Case C-175/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 14 May 2009 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Axa UK plc

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 14 May 2009 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Axa UK plc
   (Case C-175/09)
   2009/C 153/59
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Axa UK plc

      Questions referred

               1.

               What are the characteristics of an exempt service that has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entail[s] changes in the legal and financial situation’?
               In particular:

                           (a)

                           Is the exemption applicable to services which would not otherwise have to be performed by any of the financial institutions which (i) make a debit to one account, (ii) make a corresponding credit to another account, or (iii) perform an intervening task between (i) or (ii)?

                           (b)

                           Is the exemption applicable to services which do not include the carrying out of tasks of making a debit to one account and a corresponding credit to another account, but which may, where a transfer of funds results, be seen as having been the cause of that transfer?

               2.

               In the light of SDC, is a trader (which is not itself a bank) performing an exempt service in accordance with Article 13B(d)(3) where the tasks he carries out for his client (1) comprise the collection, processing and onward payment of monies due to the client from a third party; in particular, the tasks of:

                           (a)

                           transmitting information to the third party's bank calling for a payment from the third party's bank account to the trader's own bank account, in reliance on a standing authorisation given by that third party to the bank (pursuant to the ‘Direct Debit’
                           scheme); and subsequently, if the bank makes that payment,

                           (b)

                           giving an instruction to his own bank to transfer funds from his account to the client's bank account but (2) do not include tasks of (a) making a debit to one bank account, (b) making a corresponding credit to another bank account, or (c) performing any intervening task between (a) and (b)?

               3.

               Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 2 (above) if the service described in that question is performed by transmitting the information to an electronic system which then automatically communicates with the relevant bank, even if the transmission of the information may not always result in a transfer being made (e.g. because the third party has cancelled his standing authorisation to his bank or does not have sufficient funds in his account)?


title: Case F-112/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 — Krčová v Court of Justice (Staff case — Probationary official — Article 34 of the Staff Regulations — Dismissal of a probationary official — Discretion — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 — Krčová v Court of Justice
   (Case F-112/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Probationary official - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Dismissal of a probationary official - Discretion - Duty to state reasons - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Principle of sound administration)
   (2007/C 297/95)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Erika Krčová (Trnava, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: M. Schauss)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Court of Justice decision of 18 October 2005 dismissing the applicant at the end of her probationary period.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 49.


title: Case C-157/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. v Administración General del Estado

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-157/10)
   2010/C 179/26
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Question referred

   Must Articles 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national rules (enacted unilaterally or under a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation) which, in the context of corporation tax and within the framework of provisions for the avoidance of such double taxation, prohibit the deduction of amounts of tax due in other Member States of the European Union on income subject to corporation tax and obtained in their territory where those amounts, though due, are not paid by virtue of an exemption, a credit or any other tax benefit?


title: Case C-56/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH (Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Processing services — Obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information to the holder of the Community right — Requirements regarding the time and content of an application for information)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
   (Case C-56/11) (1)

   (Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Processing services - Obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information to the holder of the Community right - Requirements regarding the time and content of an application for information)
   2013/C 9/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG

      Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1) and of Article 9(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14) — Obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information to the holder of the Community right — Requirements regarding the time and content of an application for information capable of forming the basis of the obligation to provide information

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998, is to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information on the protected varieties in question is established if the request for information referring to a given marketing year was submitted before the expiry of that marketing year. However, there may be such an obligation so far as concerns information relating to up to three preceding marketing years, in so far as the holder of a Community plant variety right submitted a first request in respect of the same varieties and the same supplier of processing services during the first of the preceding marketing years covered by the request for information.

               2.

               The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights read in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, is to be interpreted as meaning that the request for information made by the holder of a Community plant variety right to a supplier of processing services need not contain evidence to support the indications put forward therein. Moreover, the fact that a farmer has planted under contract a protected plant variety cannot, by itself, constitute an indication that a supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by planting propagating material of that variety for planting. Such a fact may, however, in the light of the other circumstances of the case, lead to the conclusion that there is such an indication, which is for the referring court to determine in the dispute before it.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 November 1997 in Case C-408/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris): Eurotunnel SA and Others v. SeaFrance, formerly Société Nouvelle d'Armement Transmanche SA (SNAT), interveners: International Duty Free Confederation (IDFC) and Others (Transitional arrangements for tax-free shops - Council Directives 91/680/EEC and 92/12/EEC - Assessment of validity)

text:
C 7/4                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10. 1. 98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      arrangements for products subject to excise duty and
                                                                         on the holding, movement and monitoring of such
                    of 11 November 1997
                                                                         products, even though that person has not brought an
in Case C-408/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling                     action for annulment of those provisions pursuant to
from the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris): Eurotunnel SA                     Article 173 of the EC Treaty and even though a court
and Others v. SeaFrance, formerly SocieÂteÂ Nouvelle                     of another Member State has already given judgment
d'Armement Transmanche SA (SNAT), interveners:                           in separate proceedings.
International Duty Free Confederation (IDFC) and
                           Others (1)
                                                                    2. Consideration of the questions has not disclosed any
(Transitional arrangements for tax-free shops Ð Council                  factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of
Directives 91/680/EEC and 92/12/EEC Ð Assessment of                      Article 1 (22) of Directive 91/680/EEC or Article 28
                            validity)                                    of Directive 92/12/EEC.
                          (98/C 7/07)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 46, 17. 2. 1996.
               (Language of the case: French)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 11 November 1997
                                                                    in Case C-409/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-408/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen): Hellmut Marschall
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce
                                                                                v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1)
(Commercial Court), Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Eurotunnel            (Equal treatment of men and women Ð Equally qualified
SA and Others and SeaFrance, formerly SocieÂteÂ Nouvelle            male and female candidates Ð Priority for female
d'Armement Transmanche SA (SNAT), interveners:                                        candidates Ð Saving clause)
International Duty Free Confederation (IDFC), Airport
Operators Association Ltd (AOA), Bretagne Angleterre                                          (98/C 7/08)
Irlande SA (BAI), trading as Brittany Ferries, Passenger
Shipping Association Ltd (PSA) Ð on the validity of the                            (Language of the case: German)
transitional arrangements for tax-free shops under
Article 28k of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common                             published in the European Court Reports)
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, 13. 6. 1977, p. 1), as inserted by Article 1 (22)
                                                                    In Case C-409/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
of Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
supplementing the common system of value added tax and
                                                                    (Administrative Court) Gelsenkirchen (Germany), for a
amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the
                                                                    preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ L 376, 31. 12. 1991, p. 1),
                                                                    court between Hellmut Marschall and Land Nordrhein-
and under Article 28 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of
                                                                    Westfalen Ð on the interpretation of Article 2 (1) and (4)
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for
                                                                    of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on
products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
                                                                    the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ L 76,
                                                                    men and women as regards access to employment,
23. 3. 1992, p. 1) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
                                                                    vocational training and promotion, and working
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm
                                                                    conditions (OJ L 39, 14. 2. 1976, p. 40) Ð the Court,
(Rapporteur), M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
                                                                    composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
                                                                    Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of
Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
                                                                    Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General;
                                                                    P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November
                                                                    Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
1997, in which it has ruled:
                                                                    Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
                                                                    Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 11 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
1. A natural or legal person may challenge before a
    national court the validity of provisions in directives,
    such as Article 1 (22) of Council Directive 91/680/             A national rule which, in a case where there are fewer
    EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the                       women than men at the level of the relevant post in a
    common system of value added tax and amending                   sector of the public service and both female and male
    Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of            candidates for the post are equally qualified in terms of
    fiscal frontiers and Article 28 of Council Directive            their suitability, competence and professional performance,
    92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general                    requires that priority be given to the promotion of female


title: Case F-100/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2007 — Simon v Court of Justice and Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/60

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2007 — Simon v Court of Justice and Commission
   (Case F-100/06) (1)

   (2007/C 95/120)

      Language of the case: Hungarian

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 65.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) of 2 May 1997 in Case T-136/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/25
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Fidu                 Action brought on 9 April 1997 by C. A. S. Succhi di
ciaire Myson, Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against European               Frutta S.p.a. against Commission of the European
Parliament (Agents : Manfred Peter and Norbert Lorenz )                                            Communities
— application for annulment of decisions of the European                                        ( Case T-106/97)
Parliament characterizing as irregular the absences of the
applicant from work from March to October 1995 — the                                              ( 97/C 199/70 )
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges;                               (Language of the case: Italian)
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 26 March 1997, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
I. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       Instance of the European Communities on 9 April 1997
                                                                       by C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta S.p.a ., represented by Alberto
                                                                       Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian
2 . The parties are to bear their own costs.                           Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of
                                                                       the Venice Bar, with an address for service in Brussels at
                                                                       Mr Tizzano's Chambers, 36 Place du Grand Sablon.
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul the Commission decision of 22 July 1996 (No
                                                                            C(96 ) 1916 ) concerning the supply of fruit juices and
                                                                           jams for the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan,
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        ( Second Chamber)                              — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                           of 2 May 1997                                   proceedings .
in Case T-136/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
              of the European Communities (*)
(Competition — Action for annulment — Objection of                     The applicant is the same as that which, in Case T-191/
                           inadmissibility)                            96 ( ] ), contests the ex post facto amendment of one of the
                            ( 97/C 199/69
                                                                       essential points in the notice of tender relating to the
                                                                       supply of fruit juices and jams for the peoples of Armenia
                                                                       and Azerbaijan. It points out in this regard that, while the
               (Language of the case: French)                          amendment contested in Case T-191 /96 consisted in the
                                                                       possibility of withdrawing from intervention stocks fresh
                                                                       products other than those specified in the notice of tender,
In Case T-136/96 : Automobiles Peugeot SA, having its                  in particular peaches, that challenged in the present action
registered office in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux,             is an amendment, adopted by way of the contested
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                       decision, which extends this possibility of substitution to
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue                    nectarines .
Zithe , against Commission of the European Communities
( Agents: Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier ) —
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
application for the annulment of the Commission's                      those relied on in Case T-191 /96 .
decision of 19 July 19 96 allegedly rejecting requests by the
applicant for confidential treatment of certain information
provided to the Commission in the context of Article 11                (>) OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997, p . 15 .
of Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation
implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ,
English Special Edition, 1959-62 ( I ), p. 87) — the Court
of First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of C. W.
Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 May 1997,               Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Molkerei
the operative part of which is as follows:                             Großbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                               ( Case T-109/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/71 )
2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997


title: Case C-441/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Douai by judgment of that court of  1 December 2005  in Roquette Frères v Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et de la Ruralité

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Douai by judgment of that court of 1 December 2005 in Roquette Frères v Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et de la Ruralité
   (Case C-441/05)
   (2006/C 36/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour administrative d'appel de Douai (Administrative Court of Appeal, Douai) of 1 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Roquette Frères and Ministre de l'agriculture, de l'alimentation, de la pêche et de la ruralité (Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs) on the following questions:

               1.

               Could Roquette Frères undoubtedly have mounted an admissible challenge directly before it to the legality of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 1785/81 (1), Article 27(3) of Regulation No 2038/1999 (2), Article 1 of Regulation No 2073/2000 (3), Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1260/2001 (4), Article 1 of Regulation No 1745/2002 (5) and Article 1 of Regulation No 1739/2003 (6)?

               2.

               If Roquette Frères can admissibly plead the illegality of those provisions, are Article 24(2) of Regulation No 1785/81, Article 27(3) of Regulation No 2038/1999, Article 1 of Regulation No 2073/2000, Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1260/2001, Article 1 of Regulation No 1745/2002 and Article 1 of Regulation No 1739/2003 valid inasmuch as they set the maximum basic quantities of isoglucose production for metropolitan France without taking into account the isoglucose produced in that Member State between 1 November 1978 and 30 April 1979 as an intermediate product used in the manufacture of other products intended for sale.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1999 L 252, p. 1)

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of 29 September 2000 reducing, for the 2000/2001 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 38)

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1)

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of 30 September 2002 reducing, for the 2002/2003 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements (OJ 2002 L 263, p. 31)

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of 30 September 2003 reducing, for the 2003/2004 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under preferential imports (OJ 2003 L 249, p. 38)


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 June 2001 in Case C-118/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons): Gervais Larsy v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1248/92 — Retirement pensions — Anti-overlapping rules — Unenforceability pursuant to a judgment of the Court of Justice — Limitation of effects — Serious breach of Community law)

text:
C 227/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.8.2001
     by the employer in respect of their employment, constitutes pay                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and the
     Directive; equal pay must be ensured not only on the basis of
     an overall assessment of all the consideration granted to                                         (First Chamber)
     employees but also in the light of each aspect of pay taken in
     isolation;                                                                                of 28 June 2001
                                                                            in Case C-118/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
—    the fact that a female employee who claims to be the victim of
                                                                            the Cour du travail de Mons): Gervais Larsy v Institut
     discrimination on grounds of sex and the male comparator are
                                                                            national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépen-
     classified in the same job category under the collective agreement
                                                                                dants (Inasti) (1)
     governing their employment is not in itself sufficient for
     concluding that the two employees concerned are performing
     the same work or work to which equal value is attributed within        (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1248/92 — Retire-
     the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of           ment pensions — Anti-overlapping rules — Unenforceability
     the Directive, since this fact is only one indication amongst          pursuant to a judgment of the Court of Justice — Limitation
     others that this criterion is met;                                             of effects — Serious breach of Community law)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/06)
—    as a general rule, it is for employees who consider themselves to
     be the victims of discrimination to prove that they are receiving
     lower pay than paid by the employer to a colleague of the other
     sex and that they are in fact performing the same work or work                              (Language of the case: French)
     of equal value, comparable to that performed by the chosen
     comparator; the employer may then not only dispute the fact
     that the conditions for the application of the principle of equal      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     pay for men and women are met in the case but also put                                     in the European Court Reports)
     forward objective grounds, unrelated to any discrimination
     based on sex, to justify the difference in pay;
                                                                            In Case C-118/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour du travail
                                                                            de Mons (Labour Court, Mons) Belgium for a preliminary
—    a difference in pay is capable of being justified by circumstances     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
     not taken into consideration under the collective agreement            Gervais Larsy and Institut national d’assurances sociales pour
     application to the employees concerned, provided that they             travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) — on the interpretation of
     constitute objective reasons unrelated to any discrimination           Article 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
     based on sex and in conformity with the principle of pro-              14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     portionality;                                                          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
                                                                            of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                            and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
—    in the case of work paid at time rates, a difference in pay            2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council
     awarded, at the time of their appointment, to two employees of         Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992
     different sex for the same job or work of equal value cannot be        L 136, p. 7), and on the conditions governing a Member State’s
     justified by factors which become known only after the employees       liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of
     concerned take up their duties and which can be assessed only          Community law — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
     once the employment contract is being performed, such as a             M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
     difference in the individual work capacity of the persons              and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger; Advocate General; H. von
     concerned or in the effectiveness of the work of a specific            Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
     employee compared with that of a colleague.                            judgment on 28 June 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1.    Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                                of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                                security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                                and to members of their families moving within the Community
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                                           as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992, does not
                                                                                apply to an application for review of a retirement pension, the
                                                                                amount of which has been limited under an anti-overlapping
                                                                                rule applicable in a Member State, on the ground that the
                                                                                person receiving that pension has also been awarded a retirement
                                                                                pension paid by the competent institution of another Member
                                                                                State, where the application for review is based on provisions
                                                                                other than those in Regulation No 1248/92.
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 227/5
2.    The application by the competent institution of a Member State        1.    Declares that by not implementing within the prescribed period
      of Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation No 1408/71 to                  the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
      a request for review of a retirement pension, thus limiting the             comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament
      retroactivity of the review to the detriment of the person                  and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council
      concerned, constitutes a serious breach of Community law if                 Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions
      those provisions are not applicable to the application in question          laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
      and if it follows from a judgment delivered by the Court of                 Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
      Justice before the decision by the competent institution that the           activities, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
      institution wrongly applied and anti-overlapping rule of that               its obligations under that directive;
      Member State, and where it cannot be inferred from that
      judgment that the retroactive effect of such a review could be        2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      limited.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                                                of 3 July 2001
                           of 21 June 2001                                  in Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
in Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State
                                                                            aid — Article 93(2), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (now Article 88(2), second subparagraph, EC) — Obligation
Failure to implement Directive 97/36/EC amending Directive                  to recover aid granted under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter
89/552/EEC — Coordination of certain provisions laid down                               schemes — Impossible to put into effect)
by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
 concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/08)
                           (2001/C 227/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communities                    (Agent: G. Rozet) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,
(Agent: K. Banks) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                       assisted by G. van Gerven and K. Coppenholle) — application
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing              for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the periods
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                prescribed for under the Maribel bis/ter scheme which was
necessary to comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European                 declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market
Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending                      by Commission Decision 97/239/EC of 4 December 1996
Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain                 concerning aid granted by Belgium under the Maribel bis/ter
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative                   scheme (OJ 1997 L 95, p. 25), notified to it on 20 December
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television                1996, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), and/or by                   under the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty
failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of                (now the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC) and Articles 2
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                  and 3 of the said decision — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La                  composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,
Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Eward (Rapporteur)                J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric
and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                   (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louter-
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in               man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
which it:                                                                   judgment on 3 July 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-293/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Syria International Islamic Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment — Burden of proof — Claim for damages)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Syria International Islamic Bank v Council
   (Case T-293/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment - Burden of proof - Claim for damages))
   2014/C 245/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syria International Islamic Bank PJSC (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Laguesse and J.-P. Buyle, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and D. Gicheva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 20, corrigendum OJ 2012 L 173, p. 27) and of Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 80), in so far as they concern the applicant and, secondly, a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it relates to Syria International Islamic Bank PJSC;

               2.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it relates to Syria International Islamic Bank;

               3.

               Dismisses the claim for damages as inadmissible;

               4.

               Orders Syria International Islamic Bank to bear one quarter of its own costs;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by Syria International Islamic Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case C-290/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Oreste Della Rocca v Poste Italiane SpA (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 2 — Scope of application of the Framework Agreement — Temporary employment business — Supply of temporary workers to a user undertaking — Successive fixed-term employment contracts)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Oreste Della Rocca v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-290/12) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 2 - Scope of application of the Framework Agreement - Temporary employment business - Supply of temporary workers to a user undertaking - Successive fixed-term employment contracts)
   2013/C 156/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oreste Della Rocca

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli — Interpretation of Clauses 2 and 5 of the Framework Agreement set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Scope — Applicability of that directive to temporary employment agencies — Possibility for those agencies to draw up successive fixed-term contracts with temporary workers owing to circumstances justifying the temporary nature of the employment relationship between the temporary worker and the undertaking making use of that worker

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, and the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, set out in the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as not applying either to the fixed-term employment relationship between a temporary worker and a temporary employment business or to the employment relationship between such a worker and a user undertaking.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-412/11: Action brought on 28 July 2011 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/41

         Action brought on 28 July 2011 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION)
   (Case T-412/11)
   2011/C 282/78
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maharishi Foundation Ltd (St. Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2011 in case R 1293/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION’ for goods and services in classes 16, 41, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8246647

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application for a Community trade mark, for part of the goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Examination Division for further prosecution

      Pleas in law: The applicant puts forward four pleas in law: (i) infringement of Articles 75 and 7(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not explicitly decided on Article 7(1)(a) of CTMR, but did, nevertheless, consider that the mark ‘TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION’ is generic; (ii) infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided that the mark is devoid of any distinctive character; (iii) infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly concluded that the mark consists exclusively of indications, which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or services, for which applicant filed the mark; and (iv) infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided that the mark has not become distinctive in relation to the goods or services, for which registration is requested in consequence of the use, which has been made of it.


title: Case T-75/10: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2012 — Embraer and Others v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/23

         Order of the General Court of 13 July 2012 — Embraer and Others v Commission
   (Case T-75/10) (1)

   2012/C 273/39
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-251/15: Action brought on 14 May 2015 — Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/34

         Action brought on 14 May 2015 — Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB
   (Case T-251/15)
   (2015/C 245/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal), SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: R. Oliveira, N. Cunha Barnabé and S. Estima Martins, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the tacit decision taken by the European Central Bank (ECB) on 4 March 2015, under the terms of Article 8(3) of Decision ECB/2004/3 (Tacit Decision), not to provide full access to the ECB decision of 1 August 2014, suspending Banco Espírito Santo S.A.’s Eurosystem monetary policy counterparty status and obliging the said bank to fully repay its debt to the Eurosystem to an amount of 10 billion EUR, as well as all documents, in the ECB’s possession, which were in any way related to the said decision;

               —

               annul the express decision taken by the ECB on 1 April 2015 (Express Decision), not to provide full access to the abovementioned documents;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, concerning the Tacit Decision, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Tacit Decision, by not providing the reasons for the refusal to provide full access to the requested ECB documents, did not comply with the duty to state reasons and should thus be annulled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning the Express Decision, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons in relation to Governing Council decision.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision refusing access to the requested information should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3 and, in particular, (ii) it did not provide the reasons why the exception listed in the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of the Decision ECB/2004/3 would justify the restriction of the applicant’s right of access.

               3.

               Third plea in law, concerning the Express Decision, alleging the breach of the first, second and seventh indents of Article 4(1)(a) of the Decision ECB/2004/3.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, concerning the Express Decision, alleging the breach of the first indent of Article 4(2) of the Decision ECB/2004/3 in relation to the Governing Council decisions.

               5.

               Fifth plea, concerning the Express Decision, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons in relation to executive Board’s proposals.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar: (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (ii) it failed to provide any particular reasons to refuse access to specific information requested by the applicant; (iii) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(1)(a) seventh indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (iv) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(2) first indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (v) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Decision ECB/2004/3.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-215/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances - Failure by a Member State to adopt the programmes provided for in Article 6 of the Directive)

text:
20.11.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 333/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 8 July 1999                                                             of 8 July 1999
in Case C-203/98: Commission of the European Communi-                      in Case C-215/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators con-
Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) — Air traffic — Registration of                  taining certain dangerous substances — Failure by a Member
                               aircraft)                                   State to adopt the programmes provided for in Article 6 of
                                                                                the Directive)
                           (1999/C 333/17)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/18)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(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-203/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: Maria Patakia) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Anni                   In Case C-215/98: Commission of the European Communities
Snoecx) — application for a declaration that, by requiring that            (Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
Community operators be resident or established for one year                Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Nana Dafniou) — application
in Belgium in order to register aircraft there and by refusing to          for a declaration that, by failing to draw up and notify within
authorise flights requested by them, thus unjustifiably or                 the prescribed period the programmes provided for in Article 6
excessively hindering the temporary or permanent provision                 of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteri-
of services in the field of air traffic other than for transport,          es and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 38), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
under Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                   fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth
amendment, Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court                    Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of                Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward
Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges;                and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
                                                                           1. Declared that, by failing to draw up within the prescribed
1. Declares that, by requiring Community operators to be resident               period the programmes provided for in Article 6 of Council
    or established for one year in Belgium before they can register             Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
    aircraft there, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its             accumulators containing certain dangerous substances, the Hell-
    obligations under Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after            enic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;
    amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC);
                                                                           2. Ordered the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                              (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case T-194/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hungary v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 — E-Bacchus database — Registration of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblast’ Tokaj’, in respect of Slovakia — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-194/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 - E-Bacchus database - Registration of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblast’ Tokaj’, in respect of Slovakia - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 399/31
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented initially by J. Fazekas, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, then by M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, V. Bottka and M. Vollkommer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the registration of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblasť Tokaj’, with Slovakia indicated as country of origin, in the electronic register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine (the E-Bacchus database).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Slovakia to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police, Luxembourg, by judgment of that court of 2 April 1996 in the case of Ministère Public v. René Kieffer and Romain Thill (Case C-114/96)

text:
 No C 158/8               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1 . 6 . 96
      the legislation applicable for the grant of benefits is to                  assimilation and simplification thresholds a detailed
      apply permanently even if the right to orphans' pension                     declaration of all its intra-Community imports and
      first arose in the Member State which is competent                          exports, has Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3330/91 of
      thereunder ( in this case the State of residence ) but has                  7 November 1991 (') introduced a measure having an
      subsequently been lost by reason of the attainment of an                    effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on trade
      age limit, while in another Member State whose                              in goods between Member States prohibited by
      legislation was also applicable to the insured person, a                    Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty ?
      right to orphan's pension would run beyond that time
      in pursuance of Article 79 of Regulation ( EEC )                     ( b ) Does the obligation to provide the data required under
      No 1408/71 , or is there in such a case a change                            the Intrastat collection system in both the importing
      of the legislation applicable in accordance with                            and the exporting country, breach of which is subject to
      Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of the Regulation ?                           criminal sanctions under Luxembourg law in the event
                                                                                of non-submission of the information requested to
 2 . Does the expectation of continuing to receive orphans '                      the Service central de la statistique et des études
      pension already granted by a Member State under a                           économiques ( Central Statistics and Economics Unit ),
      convention concluded between two Member States and                          constitute for traders a constraint that is unjustified and
      transposed into national law for a longer period ( for                      disproportionate in relation to the general-interest
      example in the case of education or vocational training                     objective pursued and is it therefore contrary to the
      extending beyond the completion of the 18th year ) than                     third paragraph of Article 3b of the EEC Treaty as
      the orphans' pension which is to be granted pursuant to                     inserted by Article G ( 5 ) of the Treaty on European
      the legislation of another Member State, applicable                         Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 ?
      under Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1408/71 , constitue one of the social security                    C ) OJ No L 316 , 16 . 11 . 1991 , p . 1 .
      advantages which orphans must not lose by virtue of
      the fact that the said convention lias been rendered
      inapplicable by the entry into force of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1408 /71 ?
 3 . If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative : Can
      orphans who were already entitled, before Regulation                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tullilautakunta
      ( EEC ) No 1408/71 came into force, to orphans'                     by interim order of that body of 27 March 1996 in the
      pensions according to the law of a Member State in                               proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy
      pursuance of a social insurance convention concluded                                          ( Case C-1 15/96 )
      between two Member States again rely on that
      entitlement where there is no longer any right to                                               ( 96/C 158 / 18 )
      a benefit which first arose under the legislation
      of another Member State applicable under                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?            European Communities by an interim order of the
                                                                          Tullilautakunta ( Customs Committee ) of 27 March 1996 ,
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .                   which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 1 996 ,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by
                                                                           Outokumpu Oy on the following questions :
                                                                           1 . Is the duty levied on electricity to be regarded as a
                                                                                customs duty or other charge having equivalent effect
                                                                                prohibited by Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty, if the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                         electricity duty is determined with respect to electricity
Police, Luxembourg, by judgment of that court of 2 April                        imported from another Member State on the basis of the
1996 in the case of Ministère Public v. René Kieffer and                        amount of electricity received by the recipient of
                               Romain Thill                                     electricity during a tax period, whereas with respect to
                            ( Case C-1 14/96 )                                  domestically produced electricity the duty is determined
                                                                                on the basis of the amount produced during a tax
                              ( 96/C 158/17)                                    period ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          What effect does it have on the assessment of the matter
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                           that the rate of duty is different for electricity produced
Police ( Local Criminal Court ), Luxembourg, of 2 April                          by different production methods ? Duty of 2,4 p/kWh is
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 9 April                      levied on electricity produced by nuclear power, and the
 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public               rate of duty levied on imported electricity is 2,2 p/kWh .
( Public Prosecutor's Office ) v . René Kieffer and Romain                      Duty of 0,4 p/kWh is levied on electricity produced by
Thill on the following questions :                                              water power .
( a ) In so far as it requires Member States to obtain from               2 . Is the tax system described in Question 1 to be regarded
       every undertaking exceeding the stipulated exclusion,                    as an internal taxation system of a Member State ,


title: Case T-169/14: Action brought on 17 March 2014 — Ferring v OHIM — Kora Corporation (Koragel)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/28

         Action brought on 17 March 2014 — Ferring v OHIM — Kora Corporation (Koragel)
   (Case T-169/14)
   2014/C 151/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kora Corporation Ltd (Swords, Ireland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 January 2014 given in Case R 721/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant and the intervener, should it intervene, to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Koragel’ for goods in Class 5 –Community trade mark application No 10 490 027

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘CHORAGON’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark registration No 8 695 314

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/45

         Removal from the Register of Case T-423/03 (1)

   (2004/C 228/108)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 24 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-423/03, Elisabeth Saskia SMIT v Europol.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.


title: Case T-64/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative trade mark Tasty Puff — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)
   (Case T-64/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative trade mark Tasty Puff - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 063/38)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicants: Michał Wieromiejczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 3058/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Tasty Puff as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Michał Wieromiejczyk to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case C-593/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark Color Focus — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the Community word mark Focus — Declaration of invalidity — Surrender — Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/6

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH
   (Case C-593/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark Color Focus - Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the Community word mark Focus - Declaration of invalidity - Surrender - Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 102/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent, R. Schweizer, Rechtsanwalt), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (represented by R. Schweizer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10 Lancôme v OHIM, by which the General Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the word mark ‘COLOR FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 against Decision R 238/2009-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2010, dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Cancellation Division upholding the action for a declaration of the invalidity of that mark, brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the marks — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Abuse of rights.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

               2.

               Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie shall pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case C-2/15 SA: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2015 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission (Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order on the Commission)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/17

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2015 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission
   (Case C-2/15 SA) (1)

   ((Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order on the Commission))
   (2016/C 038/24)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The application is rejected.

               2)

               ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


C 366/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-92/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-185/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/47)
By order of 24 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-92/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                        from the register of Case C-185/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X, Y and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                          Z.
                                                                   (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-151/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/44)
By order of 28 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-151/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-186/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                 (1999/C 366/48)
                                                                   By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-186/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X.
       Removal from the register of Case C-31/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/45)                             (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-31/99: Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-210/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/49)
       Removal from the register of Case C-32/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/46)                             By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-210/99: Commission of the
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-32/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-8/04 (1)

   (2006/C 60/63)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 15 December 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-8/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch): E. Bujara v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Limburg.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.


title: Case T-306/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Schwenk Zement v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/29

         Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Schwenk Zement v Commission
   (Case T-306/11)
   2011/C 238/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Raible, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products);

               —

               in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: the form of the decision is disproportionate
               The contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality since it constitutes the first measure of investigation adopted in relation to the applicant and the applicant was willing to provide information.

                           —

                           It is true that Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) does not provide for a hierarchical relationship between simple requests for information and a decision requiring information. This does not change the fact, however, that the principle of proportionality is to be observed when opting for a measure of investigation.

                           —

                           Compared with a decision requiring information pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 a request for information pursuant to Article 18(2) of that regulation is the more lenient option and also constitutes an effective method in relation to undertakings which are willing to provide information.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003
               The contested decision does not meet the requirements of the legal basis in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003

                           —

                           The Commission does not set out any concrete allegations and the information requested largely does not coincide with what it claims to be its allegation.

                           —

                           Therefore, the request for information is not necessary for the Commission's investigation. The information requested cannot constitute evidence of an infringement of cartel law.

               3.

               Third plea in law: the time limit imposed was disproportionate
               The two-week time limit within which to answer Question 11 was not sufficient for the applicant.

                           —

                           The Commission reduced the time limit for answering question 11 from two months in its draft decision to two weeks in the contested decision without reasoning its decision to do so.

                           —

                           It was impossible for the applicant to provide an answer within the two-week time limit. However, the Commission categorically rejected its request for an extension of that time limit.

                           —

                           As a result of the breadth of the information requested, the difficulty in compiling the information and the individual situation of the applicant, a longer time limit was strictly necessary for it.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: insufficient grounds are given in the contested decision
               The grounds for the contested decision are not stated in a proper manner.

                           —

                           The contested decision does not set out the allegations made against the applicant. It also fails to state the connection between the information requested and the allegations made.

                           —

                           Insufficient grounds are also given for the determination of the time limit in general and for the shortening of the time limit for answering question 11 from two months in its draft decision to two weeks in the contested decision.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: the applicant's rights of defence have been infringed
               As a result of the time pressure exerted by the Commission, the applicant's rights of defence were infringed, in particular its right not to incriminate itself.

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


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-449/03: Commission of the European Communities against French Republic (Failure of a member State to fulfil obligations — Management of waste — Waste tip at Saint-Laurent du Maroni — Directives 75/442/EE and 91/156/EEC)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-449/03: Commission of the European Communities against French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a member State to fulfil obligations - Management of waste - Waste tip at Saint-Laurent du Maroni - Directives 75/442/EE and 91/156/EEC)
   (2005/C 115/10)
   Language of the case French
   In case C-449/03, action for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 24 October 2003 under Article 226 EC, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Konstantinidis and B. Stromsky) against French Republic (agents: G. de Bergues and D. Petrausch), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klucka, Judges, Advocate General: L. A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 10 March 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by failing to issue a permit for the operation of the tip for household and equivalent waste situated within the limits of the municipality of Saint-Laurent du Maroni in French Guyana,

                           —

                           by refraining from taking the necessary measures to ensure that the waste on the abovementioned tip is treated or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which might harm the environment, and

                           —

                           by refraining from taking the necessary measures to ensure that the operator of the abovementioned tip itself treats or disposes of waste or has it handled by a private or public waste collector,

                     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9, 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

               2.

               Orders French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, of 29.11.2003.


title: Case C-347/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Rewe Zentralfinanz eG, as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Immediate offsetting of losses incurred by parent companies — Losses stemming from write-downs to the book value of shareholdings in subsidiaries established in other Member States)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Rewe Zentralfinanz eG, as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte
   (Case C-347/04) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Immediate offsetting of losses incurred by parent companies - Losses stemming from write-downs to the book value of shareholdings in subsidiaries established in other Member States)
   (2007/C 96/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rewe Zentralfinanz eG, as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Mitte
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), Article 58 (now Article 48 EC) and Article 73b (now Article 56 EC) — National legislation on corporation tax limiting the set-off by resident parent companies of losses resulting from the writing down of holdings in subsidiary companies resident for tax purposes in other Member States
   Operative part of the judgment
   In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a parent company holds shares in a non-resident subsidiary which give it a definite influence over the decisions of that foreign subsidiary and allow it to determine its activities, Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State which restricts the right of a parent company which is resident in that State to deduct for tax purposes losses incurred by that company in respect of write-downs to the book value of its shareholdings in subsidiaries established in other Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.