title: Case C-111/10: Action brought on 1 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/32

         Action brought on 1 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-111/10)
   2010/C 113/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, B. Stromsky, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of State-owned agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (1);

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Council, by adopting the contested decision, has overturned the Commission's decision resulting from the proposal for appropriate measures in Point 196 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007-2013 (2) (hereafter the ‘2007 Agricultural Guidelines’) and from its unconditional acceptance by Lithuania, obliging the latter to bring to an end an existing aid scheme for the purchase of State-owned agricultural land by 31 December 2009 at the latest. Under the guise of exceptional circumstances, the Council has in fact allowed Lithuania to maintain that scheme until the expiry of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines on 31 December 2013. The circumstances put forward by the Council as the grounds for its decision are self evidently not exceptional circumstances of such a nature as to justify the decision taken and make no allowance for the Commission's decision on that scheme.

               2.

               In support of its action for annulment, the Commission raises four pleas in law:

                           In the first place, it considers that the Council was not competent to act under the third subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU because the aid which it approved was existing aid which Lithuania had committed to eliminating by the end of 2009 when it accepted the appropriate measures proposed to it by the Commission.

                           Secondly, it maintains that the Council has misused its powers, seeking to neutralise the determination that aid measures which Lithuania was free to retain until the end of 2009, but not after that date, could be kept in place until 2013.

                           Thirdly, the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation which applies to Member States and also between institutions. By its decision, the Council has released Lithuania from its obligation of cooperation with the Commission in relation to the appropriate measures accepted by that Member State regarding existing aid for purchase of State-owned agricultural land in the context of the cooperation established by Article 108(1) TFEU.

                           Finally, the Commission maintains that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment insofar it found that exceptional circumstances existed which justify the adoption of the approved measure. The Commission submits that, to the extent that any exceptional circumstances did exist, the contested decision approves aid which either is incapable of addressing those exceptional circumstances or goes beyond what would be needed to resolve them, in violation of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  2009/983/EU, OJ L 338, p. 93

      (2)  OJ 2006 C 319, p. 1


title: Case C-209/15: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Korpschef van politie v W.F. de Munk

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Korpschef van politie v W.F. de Munk
   (Case C-209/15) (1)

   (2015/C 398/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case T-250/02: Action brought on 20 August 2002 by Autosalone Ispra snc against Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/37
In the alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the principles               an appropriate and equitable rate in the view of the Court
of equality, proportionality and the protection of legitimate                    and order the defendant to pay the costs.
expectations.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The purpose of these proceedings is to obtain a declaration
Action brought on 20 August 2002 by Autosalone Ispra                       that the EAEC is liable in delict or tort in its own right and/or
  snc against Commission of the European Communities                       jointly and/or severally with other bodies which may be found
                                                                           liable for the events which took place in Ispra on 3 May 2002
                         (Case T-250/02)                                   and the damage suffered as a result. The applicant recalls that
                                                                           on that date it rained extremely heavily in the municipality of
                                                                           Ispra. The premises of the applicant was unexpectedly flooded
                         (2002/C 233/64)
                                                                           following the overflowing of the sewer belonging to the Joint
                                                                           Research Centre of the EAEC-Euratom.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           The applicant points to the danger posed by that sewer and to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  its obvious insufficient capacity to carry off water. The
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 proprietors moreover negligently, recklessly and incom-
European Communities on 20 August 2002 by Autosalone                       petently failed over the years to provide maintenance intended
Ispra snc, represented by Barbara Casu, lawyer.                            to prevent a recurrence and thus undermined also the safety
                                                                           of the adjacent population.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           On the basis of those considerations the applicant takes the
—    order the EAEC-Euratom to compensate Autosalone Ispra                 view that the Community has incurred non-contractual liability
     snc for the all the damage suffered and to be suffered at             under Article 188(2) of the EAEC Treaty.


title: Case T-266/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — CB v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bankcards — Decision ordering an investigation — Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 — Statement of reasons — Proportionality)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — CB v Commission
   (Case T-266/03) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bankcards - Decision ordering an investigation - Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 - Statement of reasons - Proportionality)
   (2007/C 199/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Georges and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially T. Christoforou and O. Beynet and then by T. Christoforou and F. Arbault, Agents)
   Re:
   Firstly, action for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1524/9 of 7 May 2003 in Case COMP/D1/38.606 ordering Groupement des cartes bancaires and its subsidiaries to submit to an investigation under Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87), as amended, and, secondly, action for the removal from the file of all documents and other evidence brought to the knowledge of the Commission during the investigation and for their return to the applicant
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.


               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/2

         Assignment of Judges to the Chambers of three Judges
   (2007/C 269/03)
   At its meeting on 9 October 2007, the Court decided to assign the Judges to the Chambers as follows:
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Tizzano, President,
   Mr Schintgen, Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Ilešič and Mr Levits, Judges
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Bay Larsen, President,
   Sir Konrad Schiemann, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Kūris, Mr Bonichot and Ms Toader, Judges
   Seventh Chamber
   Mr Lõhmus, President,
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Klučka, Mr Ó Caoimh, Ms Lindh and Mr Arabadjiev, Judges
   Eighth Chamber
   Mr Arestis, President,
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Juhász, Mr Malenovský and Mr von Danwitz, Judges


title: Case C-23/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 20 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Andre

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 20 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Andre
   (Case C-23/15)
   (2015/C 146/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Namur

      Party to the main proceedings

   Sébastien Andre
   By Order of 19 March 2015, the Court (Fourth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case T-133/09: Action brought on 27 March 2009 — I Marchi Italiani and B Antonio Basile 1952 v OHIM — Osra (B Antonio Basile 1952)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/47

         Action brought on 27 March 2009 — I Marchi Italiani and B Antonio Basile 1952 v OHIM — Osra (B Antonio Basile 1952)
   (Case T-133/09)
   2009/C 141/99
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: I Marchi Italiani (Naples, Italy) and B Antonio Basile 1952 (Giugliano, Italy) (represented by: G. Militerni, lawyer)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Osra SA (Rovereta, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 09.01.2009, notified to the applicants in the present case on 30.01.2009 in proceedings R 502/2008, between I Marchi Italiani Srl and Osra S.A., which upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division, which allowed the application for revocation and declaration of invalidity of the mark ‘B Antonio Basile 1952’, following the action brought by Osra S.A.;

               —

               Declare the registration of the mark ‘B Antonio Basile 1952’ to be valid and effective as from the date of filing of the application and/or registration of that mark;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the wording ‘B Antonio Basile 1952’ (Community trade mark No 5 274 121 (divisional registration resulting from the division of registration No 1 462 555 following partial assignment of same), for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicants.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Osra S.A.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Figurative mark ‘BASILE’ (Italian registration No 738 901 and international registration No R 413 396 B) for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Allowed the application for annulment and declared the Community trade mark in its entirety to be invalid.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 52(1)(a) and Article 53(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1) and lack of likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 June 1996 in Case T-226/94: Paul Dischamp SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Suspension of the buying-in of butter by the intervention agencies - Action for damages)

text:
10 . 8 . 96            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 233/7
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 19 June 1996                                                          of 21 June 1996
in Case T-573/93 : Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya v.                in Case T-226/94: Paul Dischamp SA v. Commission of the
        Commission of the European Communities (')                                        European Communities (')
(Officials — Person treated as a dependent child —                       (Suspension of the buying-in of butter by the intervention
Article 2 (4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations —                                 agencies — Action for damages)
General implementing provisions — Unlawfulness —                                                  ( 96/C 233/ 13 )
            Misapplication — Retroactive effect)
                         ( 96/C 233 / 12 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                          In Case T-226/94 : Paul Dischamp SA, established at Sayat
                                                                        ( France ), represented by François Vignancour, of the
                                                                        Clermont-Ferrand Bar, and Louis Schiltz, of the
                                                                        Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
In Case T-573/93 : Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya ,
                                                                        Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers v . Commission of the
an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                        European Communities ( Agent : Gérard Rozet ) —
Communities, represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia
                                                                        application for compensation for the damage allegedly
Bassas, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        suffered by the applicant following suspension of the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe ,                arrangements for the buying-in of butter by the intervention
v . Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana               agencies from 1 1 January 1991 to 26 February 1991 — the
Maria Alves Vieira and Blanca Rodriguez Galindo ) —
                                                                        Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R.
application, primarily, for a declaration that the general              Schintgen , President, R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi ,
implementing provisions relating to persons treated as                  Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June
dependent children , adopted by the Commission on                       1996 , in which it:
28 September 1989 , in particular Article 6 thereof and the
connected rules , are illegal and, in the alternative, for
annulment      of  the   decision   of     the   Commission    of
                                                                        1 , dismisses the application;
2 September 1993 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
applicant against the decision partially rejecting his request          2 , orders the applicant to pay the costs.
of 3 December 1992 for his two sons, M. J. and J. J. , to be
treated as dependent children — the Court of First Instance             (>) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
( Second Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner, President,
and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 June 1996 , in which
it :
1 , annuls the decision of the Commission of 2 September                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     1993 , notified to the applicant by letter of 6 September                                   of 21 June 1996
     1993 , rejecting his complaint against the decision of
                                                                        in Case T-41 /95 : Andrew Macrae Moat v . Commission of
     12 February 1993 , together with the latter decision ,
     inasmuch as, whilst those decisions acknowledged the                               the European Communities (')
     applicant's entitlement to the allowance for a person              (Officials — Action for damages — Implemention of a
     treated as a dependent child as regards the first of his           judgment annulling an appointment — Late completion of
     two sons, they refused to grant him that allowance in                                          staff report)
     respect of his second son;                                                                   ( 96/C 233/ 14 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2 , dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                        In Case T-41 /95 : Andrew Macrae Moat, a former official of
3 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.                             the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        initially by Jacques Verhaegen , of the Brussels Bar, and
                                                                        subsequently by Mark Clough, Barrister, of the Bar of
(') OJ No C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .                                         England and Wales, against Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Thomas F. Cusack and Julian
                                                                        Currall ) — application for compensation for harm allegedly
                                                                        suffered by the applicant as a result of the failure to
                                                                        implement or delay in implementing the judgment of the


title: Case T-357/00: Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Justina Martínez Alarcón against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.2.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 61/15
—     and to pay for all costs.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a grade C Commission official, is contesting the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Commission’s decision refusing to admit her to the tests in
                                                                          competition COM/TB/99 for the constitution of a reserve list
The applicant explains that the Office for Harmonisation in               of administrative assistants, senior administrative assistants
the Internal Market (OHIM) published an advertisement for a               and principal administrative assistants (grades B5/B4, B3/B2
job as a lawyer-linguist. Before going to the trouble of sending          and B1), on the ground that she did not possess the pro-
in a full application pack for the job, he wrote to check that            fessional experience required in category B.
his age would not be held against him. In answer to his letter,
the OHIM sent him the application forms, stressed the                     The applicant complains that the Commission unlawfully
importance of relevant ‘qualifications and experience’, and               refused to take account of the professional experience gained
raised no objection to his age. Nevertheless, in August 2000              by her in a category C job at a level corresponding to the
he was rejected on the grounds that he was a year older than              duties to be performed.
the OHIM wished.
                                                                          Although the competition notice may have provided that the
In these circumstances, the applicant claims compensation on              candidates were to have acquired the professional experience
the basis of the illegality of the OHIM’s decision on the grounds         relating to category B, that condition and the contested
of discrimination in the OHIM’s employment procedure                      decision taken on the basis of the notice are equally vitiated by
(ageism) and breach of vested rights and legitimate expec-                illegality.
tations.
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Justina Martı́-                     Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
nez Alarcón against the Commission of the European                       Cherenti against the Commission of the European Com-
                            Communities                                                                munities
                          (Case T-357/00)                                                          (Case T-361/00)
                           (2001/C 61/29)                                                           (2001/C 61/30)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Justina                       European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
Martı́nez Alarcón, residing in Brussels, represented by Carlos           Cherenti, residing at Thuin (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.                                             Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-             —     annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
      ary 2000 of the selection board in competition                            board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
      COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that                    the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
      competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing                  decision of the appointing authority dated 7 September
      authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative                          2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
      response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;                     ted by the applicant;
—     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant          —     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
      the sum of BEF 3 160 000, subject to alteration during                    the sum of BEF 7 350 000, subject to alteration during
      the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation                     the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
      for material and non-material damage;                                     for material and non-material damage;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Lema SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-216/97)

text:
C 318/24               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
the Council did not state any reasons for its decision and           linguist with responsibility at the time for automatic
did not publish its Decision as required by Article 14 ( 2 )         translation in Brussels' was not sufficient positively to
of Regulation (EC ) No 384/96 .                                      identify the applicant, and, even if it were, it was not
                                                                     defamatory.
The second to 14th applicants will suffer loss arising
directly out of the Council's Decision. The Commission's             In support of his claims, the applicant argues in particular
definitive findings in the anti-dumping investigation were           that there is nothing in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations
that, if duties were not imposed, the negative trend of the          to the effect that, in the case of damage caused to an
Community industry would continue, with the possibility              official by statements, allusions or allegations concerning
of its disappearance .                                               his character, the duty to provide assistance applies only
                                                                     where it is established that those statements, allusions or
                                                                     allegations are false. Specifically, for defamation to have
                                                                     taken place it is not necessary that the inaccuracy of the
                                                                     alleged fact be proven, but merely that its accuracy be not
                                                                     proven .
Action brought on 17 July 1997 by Bernard Lavorel
                                                                     The applicant also complains that the inquiry procedure
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     concerning his request for assistance did not give him the
                        ( Case T-214/97 )                            opportunity to state his case .
                          ( 97/C 318/47)
                                                                     Finally, the applicant claims that a parallel file exists in
                                                                     relation to him, and complains of the Commission's
                (Language of the case: French)                       unwillingness to promote him, which, he maintains, is
                                                                     influenced by documents included in that file, of whose
                                                                     existence he was unaware .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 July 1997                 (■) [ 1995 ECR-SC IA, p. 233 .
by Bernard Lavorel, residing in Brussels, represented by
Yves Rosenoer, of the Brussels Bar with an address for
service at 98 , rue J. B. Colyns.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Lema SA against the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 15 May 1997 on                                           Case T-216/97 )
     the applicant's complaint by registered letter of
     16 December 1996,                                                                        ( 97/C 318/48 )
— order the Commission to assist the applicant,                                       (Language of the case: French)
— order the Commission to make good the damage                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     suffered by the applicant.
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                     by Lema SA, whose registered office is at Gennevilliers
                                                                     ( France ), represented by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
The applicant challenges the refusal of the Commission to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
provide him with assistance, pursuant to Article 24 of the
Staff Regulations, following a number of allegedly
defamatory statements contained in tracts distributed by             — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
the R and D trade union, according to which Mr Lavorel
had directly contributed to the drawing up of a parallel
file concerning another official .                                   — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post
                                                                           clearance, of the duties in dispute,
The Commission maintains that the tracts in question did             — in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the
no more than reproduce recitals in the judgment of the                     remission of those duties,
Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/
93 , Baltsavias v. Commission ('). Moreover, the reference
in the publication in question to a 'French former lawyer           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/25
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   by Seiga SA, whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ),
                                                                      respresented by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant, which has imported television sets                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
manufactured in Turkey by various companies since 1987/
88 , applies in this case for the annulment of a decision by
the Commission, which held, on an application submitted               The applicant claims that the Court should:
by France, that 'it is justified to effect post-clearance
recovery of import duties, and the remission of those
duties is not justified in an individual case'.                       — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
The facts are similar to those in Cases T-l 86/97 et seq (')          — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post
                                                                             clearance, of the duties in dispute,
Concerning the legal background, the applicant in this
case argues that the contested decision makes no reference            — in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the
to it, that there has been insufficient reasoning, and that                  remission of those duties,
both the Turkish customs authorities and the Commission
committed errors . It submits that the Commission failed
to fulfil its obligations and the legitimate expectations             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
which Community importers might place in its action.
This constituted an 'error on the part of the competent
authorities', within the meaning of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 1697/79 , which the person liable could not reasonably
have detected, since the A.TR documents duly
authenticated by the Turkish authorities could not fail to
give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                      in Case T-2 16/97 (').
Community importers, and the latter had no reason to
cast doubt on them .
                                                                      ( ] ) See previous case .
The applicant maintains that all the conditions for
applying Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79
are fulfilled in this case, and that it is entitled to non-post
clearance recovery of the customs duties in question,
having itself acted in good faith, complying with all the
relevant provisions.                                                  Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Finally, the applicant considers that it fulfils all the                                        ( Case T-2 18/97)
conditions in order to benefit from remission of the
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/50 )
customs duties in question, pursuant to Article 13 of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') See page 17 of this Official Journal.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                      by Seiga SA, the successor of High Tech Industries SA,
                                                                      whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ), represented
Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the                by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
          Commission of the European Communities                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                      31 Grand-Rue .
                         ( Case T-2 17/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/49 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post
Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997                         clearance, of the duties in dispute,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm): Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Freedom of movement for workers - Right of a spouse of a Community national who has the nationality of a non-member country to be employed - Situation purely internal to a Member State)

text:
16 . 8 . 97          I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 252/3
2 . Such rules cannot be justified by reasons relating to             enjoying exemption under those provisions, is not
     the general interest in maintaining industrial peace as          enforceable against third parties unless it is impervious.
     a means of bringing a collective labour dispute to an
     end and thereby preventing any adverse effects on an             (') OJNoC 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .
     economic sector, and consequently on the economy of
     the State.
H OJ No C 64 , 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 June 1997
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 in Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 (references for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm):
                        (Sixth Chamber)                               Land Nordrhein-Westfalen              v. Kari Uecker   and Vera
                         of 5 June 1997                                              Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (')
in Case C-41/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               (Freedom of movement for workers — Right of a spouse
the Landgericht Hamburg): VAG-Handlerbeirat eV v.                     of a Community national who has the nationality of a
                         SYD-Consult C )                              non-member country to be employed — Situation purely
                                                                                internal to a Member State)
(Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/05 )
No 123/85 — Selective distribution system —
 'Imperviousness ' of the system as a precondition for its
              enforceability against third parties)                                       (Language of the case: German)
                          ( 97/C 252/04 )
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: German)                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 : references to the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court) Hamm,
                                                                       Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                       pending before that court between Land Nordrhein
                                                                       Westfalen and Kari Uecker and between Vera Jacquet and
 In Case C-41 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — on the interpretation of
 of the EC Treaty from the Landgericht ( Regional Court)               Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty and Articles 7 ( 1 ) and 11
 Hamburg ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                   of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of
 proceedings pending before that court between VAG                     15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
 Handlerbeirat      eV    and    SYD-Consult      —     on   the       within the Community ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968
 interpretation of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and                ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Third Chamber), composed of:
 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December                  J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur), President of the
  1984 on the application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EEC                Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-R Puissochet, Judges; N.
 Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution             Fennelly, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
 and servicing agreements ( OJ No L 15 , 18 . 1 . 1985 , p. 16 )        judgment on 5 June 1997, the operative part of which is
 — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.                       as follows :
 Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, G.
 Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),
 Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl,                     A national of a non-member country married to a worker
  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               having the nationality of a Member State cannot rely on
  judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:                       the right conferred by Article 11 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
                                                                        freedom of movement for workers within the Community
  Neither Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty nor Commission                when that worker has never exercised the right to freedom
  Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on                      of movement within the Community.
  the application of Article 85 (3) of the EEC Treaty to
  certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and                   (M OJNoC 133,4 . 5 . 1996 .
  servicing agreements is to be interpreted as precluding the
  application of national case-law on unfair competition
  under which a selective distribution system, even if


title: Case T-49/16: Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Azanta v OHIM — Novartis (NIMORAL)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/45

         Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Azanta v OHIM — Novartis (NIMORAL)
   (Case T-49/16)
   (2016/C 106/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Azanta A/S (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NIMORAL’ — Application for registration No 12 204 079

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2015 in Case R 634/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               allow the registration of the contested trademark.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-546/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring (pensa)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/19

         Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring (pensa)
   (Case T-546/12)
   2013/C 55/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pensa Pharma, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz and M. González Gordon, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring A/S (Vanlose, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2012 in case R 1884/2011-5; and

               —

               Order the defendant and if the case might be, the interveners, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the appeal incurred within the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘pensa’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark registration No 4963542

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The requests for a declaration of invalidity were based on the grounds laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) and Article 53(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on the Benelux trade mark registration No 377513 of the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Accepted the request for a declaration of invalidity against the CTM for all the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

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


title: Case F-98/13: Action brought on 3 October 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/40

         Action brought on 3 October 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-98/13)
   2013/C 367/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision drawing up the list of officials promoted in 2012 in so far as, firstly, it does not include the name of the applicant among the officials in grade AST 6, not attested, promoted to grade AST 7 and, secondly, it includes the name of another official.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority drawing up the list officials promoted in 2012 in so far as, firstly, it does not include the name of the applicant among the officials in grade AST 6, not attested, promoted to grade AST 7 and, secondly, it includes the name of another official;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2000 in Case C-65/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Safet Eyüp v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Free movement of workers — Article 7, first paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Member of a Turkish worker's family — Meaning of legal residence — Periods in which the person authorised to join the worker cohabited with him — Right to work as an employed person — Application for interim measures)

text:
21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 302/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;
                                                                             3.    Orders the French Republic and the Council of the European
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                Union to bear their own costs.
                          of 22 June 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
in Case C-147/96: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Commission’s refusal to include
an overseas country in the provisional list of third countries
established by Article 23 of Directive 92/46/EEC — Action-                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            able measure)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          (2000/C 302/01)
                                                                                of 22 June 2000
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            in Case C-65/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Safet Eyüp v Landesge-
                                                                                schäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Free movement of
                                                                             workers — Article 7, first paragraph, of Decision No 1/80
In Case C-147/96, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:                        of the Association Council — Member of a Turkish worker’s
M.A. Fierstra and J.S. van den Oosterkamp) v Commission of                   family — Meaning of legal residence — Periods in which the
the European Communities (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and T. van                    person authorised to join the worker cohabited with him —
Rijn), supported by French Republic (Agents: C. de Salins and                Right to work as an employed person — Application for
G. Mignot) and by Council of the European Union (Agents:                                              interim measures)
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin) — application for annul-
ment of the Commission’s decision communicated in its letter                                           (2000/C 302/02)
of 26 February 1996 to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands
Antilles refusing to include that country in the provisional list
of third countries drawn up in accordance with Article 23(3)                                    (Language of the case: German)
(a) of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
down the health rules for the production and placing on the
market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(OJ 1992 L 268, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                                     in the European Court Reports)
of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón (Rap-
porteur), P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                  In Case C-65/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsger-
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June                ichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
2000, in which it:                                                           pending before that court between Safet Eyüp and Landesge-
                                                                             schäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice VorarIberg — on the
1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                             interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/2                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
No 1/80, of 19 September 1980, on the development of the                     before that court against Giancarlo Fornasar, Andrea Strizzolo,
Association, adopted by the Association Council established by               Giancarlo Toso, Lucio Mucchino, Enzo Peressutti and Sante
the Association Agreement between the European Economic                      Chiarcosso, — on the interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council
Community and Turkey — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-                     Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1994, on hazardous
sed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second                   waste (CJ 1991 L 377 p. 20) and Council Decision 94/904/EC
Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kap-               of 22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste
teyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges; A. La                  pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 (OJ 1994 L 356,
Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               p. 14) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schint-
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in                  gen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President
which it has ruled:                                                          of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                                                                             (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: G. Cosmos; Registrar:
The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1180, of 19 Sep-             L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on 22 June
tember 1980, on the development of the Association, adopted by the           2000, in which it has ruled:
Association Council established by the Association Agreement
between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be                   1.    Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
interpreted as covering the situation of a Turkish national who, like              hazardous waste does not prevent the Member States, including,
the applicant in the main proceedings, was authorised in her capacity              for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts, from classifying
as the spouse of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the              as hazardous waste other than that featuring on the list of
labour force of the host Member State to join that worker there, in                hazardous waste laid down by Council Decision 94/904/EC of
circumstances where that spouse, having divorced before the expiry of              22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste
the three-year qualification period laid down in the first indent of               pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689, and
that provision, still continued in fact to live uninterruptedly with her           thus from adopting more stringent protective measures in order
former spouse until the date on which the two former spouses                       to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal
remarried. Such a Turkish national must therefore be regarded as                   of such waste. If they do so, it is for the authorities of the
legally resident in that Member State within the meaning of that                   Member State concerned which have competence under national
provision, so that she may rely directly on her right, after three years,          law to notify the Commission of such cases in accordance with
to respond to any offer of employment, and, after five years, to enjoy             the second indent of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689.
free access to any paid employment of her choice.
                                                                             2.    Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 and Decision 94/904 must
                                                                                be interpreted as meaning that it is not a necessary precondition
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.                                                          for waste to be classified, in a specific case, as hazardous, that
                                                                                its origin be determined.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 22 June 2000                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-318/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                               (Fifth Chamber)
the Pretura Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di
Cividale del Friuli, Italy): Criminal proceedings v Giancar-                                            of 22 June 2000
                      lo Fornasar and Others (1)
                                                                             in Case C-332/98: French Republic v Commission of the
(Waste — Definition of hazardous waste — Directive                                               European Communities (1)
91/689/EEC — Decision 94/904/EC — More stringent
                        measures of protection)
                                                                             (Aid for the Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre Français
                                                                                (CELF))
                            (2000/C 302/03)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/04)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-318/98: reference to the Court under Article 177                                       in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretura
Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del                   In Case C-332/98: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
Friuli, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings          and F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities


title: Case C-303/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Naczelnik Urzędu Celnego I w Łodzi v G. M., M. S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Technical regulations in the gambling sector — Directive 98/34/EC — Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — Obligation on Member States to notify the European Commission of all draft technical regulations — Inapplicability of rules classifiable as technical regulations not notified to the Commission)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Naczelnik Urzędu Celnego I w Łodzi v G. M., M. S.
   (Case C-303/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Technical regulations in the gambling sector - Directive 98/34/EC - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Obligation on Member States to notify the European Commission of all draft technical regulations - Inapplicability of rules classifiable as technical regulations not notified to the Commission))
   (2016/C 462/10)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Naczelnik Urzędu Celnego I w Łodzi

      Defendants: G. M., M. S.

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Colin Wiliams sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fall within the scope of the concept of a ‘technical regulation’, within the meaning of that directive, subject to obligatory notification under Article 8(1) of that directive, the penalty for failure to fulfil that obligation being that such a regulation is inapplicable.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-313/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2013 — Heede v OHIM (Matrix-Energetics) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Matrix-Energetics — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Relevant public — Date of the determination of the descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2013 — Heede v OHIM (Matrix-Energetics)
   (Case T-313/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Matrix-Energetics - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Relevant public - Date of the determination of the descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 9/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Günter Heede (Walldorf-Baden) (represented by: R. Utz, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1848/2010-4) concerning the application for registration of the word sign Matrix-Energetics as a Community word mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Günter Heede to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias tis Ellados (Council of State, Greece), by a decision of that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of Sindesmos ton en Elladi Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafion v. Minister of Employment (Case C-398/95)

text:
17 . 2 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 46/9
The decision to reject Geotronics' tender on grounds of                answer is in the affirmative, is that rule justified on grounds
origin was undoubtedly taken after the entry into force of             of the general interest in maintaining industrial peace in the
the EEA Agreement. The EEA Agreement applies to all legal              sensitive area of the supply of tourist services, in respect of
situations which arise after its entry into force . Geotronics         which the Greek State, as a country for which tourism is
therefore contends that there is no retroactivity in the               important, has a reasonable and justifiable interest in
present case .                                                         intervening by regulation ?
The scope of the EEA Agreement
The Court of First Instance ruled that the EEA Agreement
cannot apply to the contract at issue since one of the parties
of the Contract, Romania , is not a party to the EEA                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø- og Handelsret
Agreement. This is a formalistic conclusion which overlooks            by order of that court of 19 December 1995 in the case of
the economic reality of the situation. That reality is that            Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark,
there is in fact, as a result of the Commission's decision ,           acting on behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson, v. Dansk
discrimination between two EEA producers of equivalent                 Handel & Service, acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked
products . The economic reality of the transaction and the                                                A/S
actions taken in relation thereto should be decisive .                                           ( Case C-400/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/15 )
It is submitted that the present situation falls within the
scope of the EEA Agreement. Geotronics further maintains
that the Commission has discriminated in a manner likely to            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
distort competition between products originating in the EC             European Communities by order of the Sø- og Handelsret
and EFTA states by giving an unfair competitive advantage              ( Maritime and Commercial Court) of 19 December 1995 ,
to the former . Such discrimination hinders the free                   which was received at the Court Registry on 21 December
movement of goods contrary to Articles 8 , 11 and 65 ( 1 ) of          1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Handels- og
the EEA Agreement.                                                     Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark (Union of
                                                                       Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark ), acting on
                                                                       behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson, v. Dansk Handel &
 (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 , p . 33 .                            Service ( Danish Commercial and Service-Industries
                                                                       Association ), acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked A/S, on
                                                                       the following question:
                                                                       Does Article 5 ( 1 ), in conjunction with Article 2 ( 1 ), of
                                                                       Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
                                                                       implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis               and women as regards access to employment, vocational
 Epikratias tis Ellados ( Council of State, Greece ), by a             training and promotion, and working conditions ( x ), cover
 decision of that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of              dismissal as a result of absence following the end of
 Sindesmos ton en Elladi Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon                  maternity leave if the absence is attributable to an illness
              Grafion v. Minister of Employment                        which arose during pregnancy and continued during and
                         ( Case C-398/95 )
                                                                        after maternity leave, it being assumed that the dismissal
                                                                        took place after the end of the maternity leave ?
                            ( 96/C 46/14 )
                                                                        (') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by a decision of the Simvoulio tis
 Epikratias tis Ellados of 7 November 1995 , which was
 received at the Court Registry on 18 December 1995 , for a
 preliminary ruling in the case of Sindesmos ton en Elladi
 Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafion (Association of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
 Tourist and Travel Agencies in Greece ) v. Minister of                 Eerste Aanleg te Brussel, by judgment of that court of
 Employment, supported by the Somatio Diplomatoukhon                    12 December 1995 , in the case of B. R. D. (Bureau RIK
 Xenagon ( Association of Certified Tourist Guides ) and the            DECAN-Business Research & Development ) NV v. Belgian
 Panellinia Omospondia Xenagon ( Panhellenic Federation of                                                State
 Tourist Guides ) on the following question:
                                                                                Case C-401 /95 )
 Is the rule in Article 37 of Law No 1545/1985 which, in the                                         ( 96/C 46/ 16 )
 circumstances referred to therein, prescribes a mandatory
  legal form of a relationship of non-independent                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  employment between the parties — the legal form under                 European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
  which it is usual for the services of tourist guides to be            Eerste Aanleg te Brussel ( Court of First Instance, Brussels ),
  provided in the circumstances described in that Article —              by judgment of that court of 12 December 1995 , which was
  contrary to Articles 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty ? If the             received at the Court Registry on 21 December 1995 , for a


title: Case C-485/03: Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
24.1.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 21/17
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
mission of the European Communities against the Federal                    by order of that court dated 10 November 2003, in the
                        Republic of Germany                                          case of Celtec Ltd against Astley and others
                           (Case C-477/03)                                                          (Case C-478/03)
                            (2004/C 21/31)                                                           (2004/C 21/32)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ties on 17 November 2003 by the Commission of the                          European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
European Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt and                   dated 10 November 2003, which was received at the Court
Wouter Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    Registry on 17 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the case of Celtec Ltd and Astley and others on the following
                                                                           questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    Are the words ‘the transferor’s rights and obligations
1.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     arising from a contract of employment or from an
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                     employment relationship existing on the date of a
      Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of                     transfer’ in Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC
      the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council                           of 14 February 1977 on the approximation ofthe laws
      Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Com-                        of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
      munity’s railways (1), or by failing to inform the Com-                    employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
      mission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has                       businesses or parts of businesses (1) to be interpreted as
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.                     meaning that there is a particular point in time at which
                                                                                the transfer of the undertaking or part thereof is deemed
2.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     to have been completed and the transfer of rights and
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                     obligations pursuant to Article 3(1) is effected?
      Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council                     2.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, how is that particular
      Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertak-                   point in time to be identified?
      ings (2), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           3.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘no’, how are the words ‘on
      obligations under that directive.
                                                                                the date of a transfer’ in Article 3(1) to be interpreted?
3.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               (1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26.
      Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of
      railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges
      for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certifi-
      cation (3), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive.
4.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                              the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case C-485/03)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on                                         (2004/C 21/33)
15 March 2003.
(1) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1.                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
(2) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 26.                                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
(3) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.                                                   vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
                                                                           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/18                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    impossibility of correctly implementing the decision.
                                                                               Although the addressee of the decision, the Kingdom of
                                                                               Spain, did not bring any action against it, this was done
—     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  both by the authority granting the aid, the Diputación
      period all the measures necessary to comply with                         Foral de Álava, and the Basque trade association, Confe-
      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of 11/07/                    bask. The applicants in those proceedings did not at any
      2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain to                  time claim that implementation of the decision was
      a number of undertakings in Álava (notified under                        absolutely impossible, merely that it was a complex
      No C(2001)1759) in the form of a tax credit of 45 % of                   matter because of various administrative difficulties of an
      the investments made, or, in any event, by failing to                    internal nature.
      notify the Commission of such provisions in accordance
      with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under that decision;
                                                                          4.   Irrelevance of internal administrative difficulties: since
                                                                               Spanish law does not expressly provide for a mechanism
                                                                               for recovery of the unlawful and incompatible aid, it was
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                               decided to resort to proceedings for review, on the
                                                                               initiative of the authorities themselves, of the tax measures
                                                                               governing the grant of aid, as laid down in the General
                                                                               Tax Code of each of the Historic Territories. However,
                                                                               the national authorities deliberately chose a procedure
                                                                               which makes recovery extraordinarily difficult, namely
                                                                               proceedings for a declaration that certain measures
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                susceptible of annulment have an adverse effect, which
                                                                               renders necessary the satisfaction of a series of cumulative
                                                                               conditions, which it is extremely difficult to fulfil, above
1.    Failure to fulfil the obligation to cancel the aid payments              all from a temporal point of view. Domestic law provides
      outstanding: the measures adopted by the Spanish auth-                   for a number of procedures which, at first sight, are less
      orities do not appear to ensure that the companies                       problematical, such as review of provisions and measures
      enjoying the tax benefits in question prior to the Com-                  which are ipso jure void, a procedure which appears to
      mission decision of 11 July 2001 do not continue to                      be perfectly applicable to the aids granted in breach of
      enjoy them throughout the period initially envisaged.                    the procedure laid down in Article 88 of the EEC Treaty.
      Consequently, the abovementioned measures do not                         Recourse to that procedure would probably be less
      represent fulfilment of the obligation to abolish any                    problematical, in so far as it allows a declaration of nullity
      future payment, as provided for in Article 3(1) of the                   by the Administration itself, without the need to fulfil
      Commission decision as regards aid payments outstand-                    the requirements laid down for the abovementioned
      ing. For the same reason, those measures do not represent                declaration of adverse effects. The national authorities do
      full compliance with the obligation to adopt the measures                not appear in this case to have chosen either the least
      necessary to ensure that the aid scheme does not continue                problematical procedure or the most relevant procedure
      to operate in the future, as provided in Article 2 of the                among those available to them within the domestic legal
      Commission decision.                                                     system.
2.    Failure to fulfil the obligation to recover the aid already
      granted: despite the fact that the decision of 11 July 2001         5.   The principle of genuine cooperation between the Com-
      required immediate recovery, without delay, of the aid                   mission and the Member State: the Commission has
      granted, the only thing that the competent Spanish                       provided all clarifications requested of it, displaying
      authorities had done by October 2001 was, in their own                   availability and flexibility in order to facilitate the task of
      words, ‘to commence contacts with the contributors                       recovery to be undertaken by the national authorities.
      affected’ and in order to ‘gather information’. By express-              Commission officials have shown themselves to be willing
      ing itself in those terms, the Member State openly                       to examine the possibility of applying the de minimis
      recognised that it had not to date taken any measure to                  rule, the regulation on aid for SMEs or the guidelines on
      secure effective recovery of the aid. The Spanish auth-                  regional aid in relation to each individual case of recovery,
      orities have not even disclosed to the Commission the                    provided that they are given a report setting out details
      identity of the beneficiaries of the aid, despite numerous               of the progress achieved with recovery of the aids and the
      requests made to them.                                                   possible grounds on which each of the beneficiaries
                                                                               might qualify.
3.    There is no absolute impossibility of giving effect to the
      decision: according to settles case-law, the only defence
      on which a Member State may rely in the context of
      infringement proceedings brought by the Commission
      under Article 88 (2) of the Treaty is the absolute


title: Case T-182/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM — Tequilas del Señor (TEQUILA GOLD Sombrero Negro)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/60

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM — Tequilas del Señor (TEQUILA GOLD Sombrero Negro)
   (Case T-182/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/112)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-331/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/57

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-331/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/118
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/9
       Removal from the register of Case C-12/96 (1)              removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (reference for a
                         (98/C 312/19)                            preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin): VR-
                                                                  Leasing GmbH v. Margit Bertram.
By order of 26 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
removal from the register of Case C-12/96: Portuguese
Republic v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-351/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/23)
                                                                  By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-39/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/20)                            removal from the register of Case C-351/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Court of             Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-39/98: Commission of          (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
the European Communities v. Silena SpA.
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/24)
      Removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (1)              By order of 13 July 1998 the President of the Court of
                         (98/C 312/21)                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (reference for
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of             a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Bre-
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               scia): Criminal proceedings against Riccardo Piccaluga.
removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (reference for
a preliminiary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Ente         (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Genova v. Ministero
delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-297/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/25)
                                                                  By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/22)                            removal from the register of Case C-297/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


29.4.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 122/41
— annul the jury’s decision not to put their names on the list                   Removal from the register of Case T-193/98 (1)
    of successful candidates in Internal Competition B/260:
                                                                                (2000/C 122/63)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicants state that the Council had organised an Internal           Case T-193/98: Vassilis Boucouvalas v European Parliament.
Competition B/260 concerning passage from one category to
another on the basis of tests, in order to fill three administrative
assistants’ posts. After the tests had been marked by the jury,           (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
by letters of 27 November 1998, the Directorate for Personnel
and Administration informed the applicants that they had
obtained 109 and 105 marks respectively in the written and
oral tests overall, which would have allowed them to be
included in fifth and sixth places on the list of suitable
candidates. In accordance with the footnote on page 1 and
with Chapter V of the notice of competition, the jury did not
place them on the list of suitable candidates, since the number
of successful candidates cannot exceed the number of posts to                     Removal from the register of Case T-88/99 (1)
be filled, namely three posts.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/64)
During the pre-litigation stage, the applicants claimed that,
according to the information at their disposal, only one of the
three posts to be filled was occupied by one of the successful                               (Language of the case: Greek)
candidates and that, therefore, the competition at issue was
not a competition designed to fill specific posts, but a                  By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Second
non-specialised competition concerning passage from one                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
category to another. They requested, consequently, that a full            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
reserve list be drawn up including all the candidates who had             Case T-88/99: Vassilis Boucouvalas v European Parliament.
passed the tests, including themselves.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
In support of their claims before the Court of First Instance,
the applicants plead:
— infringement of Article 4 of the Staff Regulations, and of
    the general principle prohibiting appointment by order;
— infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations;                        Removal from the register of Case T-207/99 R
— infringement of:                                                                                (2000/C 122/65)
    — Staff Notice No 16/91 concerning the general arrange-
         ments for applying the system of internal competitions,                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
         and in particular point ‘D’ thereof,
                                                                          By order of 14 February 2000 the President of the Court of
    — Staff Notices No 70/97 and 32/98 concerning Internal                First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case T-207/99 R: Asociación de
         Competition B/260.
                                                                          Fruticultores del Jalón Medio v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.