title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 November 2002 in Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG (Appeal — State aid — Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria — Joint Declaration No 31 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Austria)

text:
11.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 7/7
Tilmann Klett and Bundesministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft                of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended
und Kultur — on the interpretation of Article 12 EC, Article 19             Composition) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker
EC, Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July                  und Stärke v Commission [2001] ECR II-1587, seeking to
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-                have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
cates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of                    being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the            M. Erhart and D. Triantafyllou) — the Court (Third Chamber),
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to             composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
provide services (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1), as amended by the Act               F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges:
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of                   F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden                  an order on 5 November 2002, the operative part of which is
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                   as follows:
Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1,
p. 1), and Articles 3 and 9 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of
5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and                 1.    The appeal is dismissed;
the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1), as                 2.    Agrana Zucker and Stärke AG shall pay the costs.
amended by that act of accession — the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermanns (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr,
Judges: A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              (1 ) OJ No C 303, 27.10.01.
made an order on 5 November 2002, the operative part of
which is as follows:
Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978
concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry,
including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
establishment and freedom to provide services, as amended by the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be             gericht by order of that Court of 15 August 2002 in the
interpreted as meaning that a person whose qualification in general         case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für
medical practice has not been awarded by an Austrian university                                            Arbeit
cannot be admitted to the specialist training in dentistry given in that
Member State.
                                                                                (Case C-372/02)
( 1) OJ No C 227, 11.8.01.
                                                                                (2003/C 7/13)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (Third Chamber)                                    European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
                                                                            (Federal Social Court) of 15 August 2002, received at the
                       of 5 November 2002                                   Court Registry on 16 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            in the case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für
    in Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG (1)                     Arbeit on the following questions:
(Appeal — State aid — Act of Accession of the Republic of                   1.    Is a person who claims benefits under German unemploy-
Austria — Joint Declaration No 31 annexed to the Final Act                        ment insurance more than two months after completing
     of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Austria)                       his compulsory national service in Spain subject to
                           (2003/C 7/12)
                                                                                (a)   Spanish legislation under Article 13(2)(e) of Council
                   (Language of the case: German)                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1)
                                                                                on the application of social security schemes to
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and
                   in the European Court Reports)                                       to members of their families moving within the
                                                                                Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2),
In Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG, established                            as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/
in Vienna (Austria) (Lawyers: W. Barfuß and H. Wollmann) —                              91 of 25 June 1991 (3) — hereinafter, ‘Regulation
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                              1408/71’ — or


title: Case C-382/99: Action brought on 9 October 1999 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/12               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.2.2000
   answers the description given in Article 2 of the directive           9. XIII. (a) Is it consistent with the scheme of the directive
   (and Article 1 of the BMW ) of a mark, must a (new) word                   and the Treaty of Paris for a sign to be registered for
   of that kind in principle be taken to have a distinctive                   specific goods or services subject to the limitation that the
   character?                                                                 registration applies only to those goods and services in so
                                                                              far as they do not possess a specific characteristic or
                                                                              characteristics (for example, registration of the sign ‘Post-
6. X. (b) If not, must a word of that kind (leaving aside                     kantoor’ for the services: direct-mail campaigns and the
   familiarity through naturalisation) in principle be taken to               issue of franking seals ‘so long as they are not connected
   have no distinctive character, and that that may be                        with a post office’)?
   otherwise only under attendant circumstances which result
   in the combination being more than the sum of its parts?              10. XVI. Is it also material to the answer to be given to the
                                                                              questions whether a corresponding sign for such goods or
                                                                              services is registered as a mark in another Member State?
   Is it of any importance in that connection whether the sign
   is the only or at any rate an obvious term for indicating
   the relevant characteristic or (combination of) character-
   istics, or whether there are synonyms which may reason-
   ably also be used, or that the word indicates a commercially
   essential or rather an incidental attribute of the product or
   service?                                                              Action brought on 9 October 1999 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
   Is it also relevant that under Article 13C of the BMW the
   right to a trade mark expressed in one of the national or                                       (Case C-382/99)
   regional languages of the Benelux area automatically
   extends to its translation in another of those languages?                                        (2000/C 47/20)
7. XI. Does the mere fact that a descriptive sign is also lodged         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
   for registration as a mark for goods and/or services of               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
   which the sign is not descriptive warrant an assessment               Communities on 9 October 1999 by the Kingdom of the
   that the sign thereby has distinctive character as regards            Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-
   those goods and/or services (for example the sign ‘Postkan-           pean Law Section of the Legal Affairs Department of the
   toor’ for furniture)?                                                 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague, acting as Agent.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
   If not, in answering the question whether such descriptive
   sign has distinctive character for such goods and/or                  (1) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision
   services, must regard be had to the possibility that, in light             (C(1999) 2539 final) of 20 July 1999 — notified on
   of its descriptive meaning or meanings, (a part of) the                    5 August 1999 — concerning State aid granted by the
   public will not perceive that sign as a distinctive sign for               Netherlands with regard to 633 Netherlands petrol stations
   (all or some) of those goods or services?                                  in the region bordering Germany;
                                                                         (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.
8. XII. (a) In the assessment of the abovementioned questions
   is significance to be attached to the fact that, since the
   Benelux countries have chosen to have applications for                Pleas in law and main arguments
   registration of trade marks examined by the Benelux Trade             — Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, of the de minimis rule (1)
   Marks Office as a requirement of registration, the appraisal               and of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and
   policy of the Office under Article 6 bis of the BMW                        the protection of legitimate expectations, together with
   according to the common commentary of the Govern-                          failure to comply with the obligation, laid down by
   ments ‘must be a cautious and restrained one whereby all                   Article 253 EC, to provide a statement of reasons, all of
   concerns of commercial life must be taken into account                     the foregoing in connection with the categorical refusal to
   and efforts must be focused on establishing which are the                  approve the aid as de minimis aid granted in respect of
   evidently inadmissible applications and refusing them’?                    each individual petrol station where it was applied for by
                                                                              the operator of more than one petrol station: provided that
   If so, under what rules does it fall to be determined whether              the de minimis amount is not made available more than
   an application is ‘evidently inadmissible’?                                once in respect of each individual petrol station, it makes
                                                                              no difference, from an economic standpoint (i.e. as regards
                                                                              trade and competition between Member States), whether
        It is assumed that in contentious invalidity proceedings              the 633 subsidised petrol stations are invariably to be
        (which may be initiated after registration of a sign) in              regarded as separate undertakings or whether, in certain
        pleading invalidity of the sign in respect of which                   cases, they form part of a larger economic entity. Cus-
        registration as a mark was applied for there is no                    tomers will be guided by the brand of petrol offered for
        additional requirement that the sign be ‘evidently                    sale and — above all — by the petrol pump price. A
        inadmissible’.                                                        subsidy granted on a pro rata basis according to the
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 47/13
   number of petrol stations operated will (potentially) result         — Infringement of Article 10 EC, of Article 87(1) EC, of the
   in the same price reduction per individual petrol station as             de minimis rule and of the principles of legal certainty,
   the single grant of the de minimis amount to a petrol                    equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expec-
   station regarded as a separate undertaking. In neither case              tations, together with non-compliance with the obligation
   will there be any difference in the effects on trade and                 requiring the terms of decisions, within the meaning of
   competition between Member States.                                       Article 249 EC, to be specified with sufficient particularity
                                                                            and failure to comply with the obligation, laid down by
— In the alternative, infringement of Article 87(1) EC, of the              Article 253 EC, to provide a statement of reasons, all of
   de minimis rule and of the principles of legal certainty,                the foregoing in connection with the obligation to seek
   equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expec-                  repayment of the subsidies: it is not possible to ascertain
   tations, non-compliance with the obligation requiring the                from the decision which amounts are to be reclaimed
   terms of decisions, within the meaning of Article 249 EC,                from which persons. More fundamentally, the Netherlands
   to be specified with sufficient particularity, and failure to            Government considers that Article 10 EC and the prin-
   comply with the obligation, laid down by Article 253 EC,                 ciples of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate
   to provide a statement of reasons, all of the foregoing in               expectations preclude any possibility of reclaiming subsi-
   connection with the division of petrol stations into the                 dies already granted pursuant to the Netherlands rules in
   categories of ‘independent’ and ‘company-owned/com-                      force. The Commission was aware — at any rate as from
   pany-operated’ undertakings.                                             18 August 1997 — of the rules in force, of the fact that
— Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, of the de minimis rule and              those rules had been implemented with effect from 1 July
   of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and the            1997 and of the Netherlands authorities’ view that such
   protection of legitimate expectations, together with failure             implementation was covered by its notice concerning the
   to comply with the obligation, laid down by Article 253 EC,              de minimis rule. If the Commission took a different view
   to provide a statement of reasons, all of the foregoing in               regarding the meaning of that notice, and if it considered
   connection with the indirect grant of aid to the oil compani-            — notwithstanding the notice on the de minimis rule that
   es, as approved by the Commission in the case of petrol                  the rules in force, like the grant of aid, as provisionally
   stations the exclusive purchasing agreements in respect of               notified on the basis of each individual petrol station,
   which contain a clause providing for a system of price                   needed to be assessed by the Commission in accordance
   controls: the conferment of indirect advantages on the oil               with Article 88(3) EC, then, having regard inter alia to its
   companies, as referred to by the Commission, does not                    obligation under Article 10 EC to cooperate in good faith
   constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.                with the national authorities, it should have pointed this
   That is particularly the case where such conferment of                   out immediately and unambiguously to the Netherlands
   indirect advantages arises solely from contractual relations             authorities. The Commission omitted to do so. Moreover,
   with which the authorities have nothing whatever to do                   such a claim for repayment would conflict, vis-à-vis the
   and of which they themselves are unaware. The national                   recipients of the aid, with the principles of legal certainty
   authorities cannot be required, in the performance of their              and of the protection of legitimate expectations (which the
   functions, invariably to verify such indirect effects, which             national courts are required to respect). The notice on the
   are not apparent to them, let alone to exclude the entry into            de minimis rule created a new category of aid measures, in
   force of such effects in all circumstances. That is the position,        respect of which the requirement that aid be notified
   at any rate, in circumstances such as those of the present               and approved in advance ceased to apply. Undertakings
   case, in which the de minimis rule is applicable.                        receiving non-notified grants of aid no longer needed, in
                                                                            those circumstances, to be concerned about the illegality
— Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, of the de minimis rule                  of the aid granted, at any rate in so far as they had
   and of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and            reasonable grounds for thinking that that aid was covered
   the protection of legitimate expectations, non-compliance                by the de minimis rule.
   with the obligation requiring the terms of decisions, within
   the meaning of Article 249 EC, to be specified with                  (1) Notice on the de minimis rule for State aid (96/C 68/06) (OJ 1996
   sufficient particularity, together with failure to comply                C 68, p. 9).
   with the obligation, laid down by Article 253 EC, to
   provide a statement of reasons, all of the foregoing in
   connection with the declaration of the incompatibility of
   the aid as regards petrol stations in respect of which, in
   the Commission’s view, the Netherlands authorities have              Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission
   provided no information or only partial information.                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
— Infringement of Article 87(3) EC and failure to comply with                                    (Case C-404/99)
   the obligation, laid down by Article 253 EC, to provide a
   statement of reasons, inasmuch as the Commission, in its                                       (2000/C 47/21)
   assessment of the compatibility of the measures to be
   regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1), failed to       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
   appreciate the environmental objectives of those measures.           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 October
   The Netherlands rules were designed to make it possible to           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
   achieve an increase in excise duty, which was regarded as            represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
   necessary for the purposes of environmental protection,              and Nicoles Coutrelis, ‘Advocate’, with an address for service
   whilst at the same time avoiding serious repercussions for           in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
   the operators of the petrol stations concerned.                      Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-518/09: Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/26

         Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-518/09)
   2010/C 37/33
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I.V. Rogalski and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU:

                           —

                           by failing to make a distinction in its law between establishment and temporary provision of services as regards the real property activities of property brokerage firms and estate agents;

                           —

                           by making the property brokerage firms and estate agents of other Member States subject to the obligation to register fully with the Portuguese Institute of Construction and Real Property (InCI, I.P.) in order to provide services temporarily;

                           —

                           by making the property brokerage firms and estate agents of other Member States subject to the obligation to insure against possible professional liability on the terms provided for under Portuguese law;

                           —

                           by making the property brokerage firms of other Member States subject to the obligation to have positive own capital as provided for under Portuguese law;

                           —

                           by making the property brokerage firms and estate agents of other Member States subject to the full disciplinary control of the InCI, I.P.;

               —

               Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU by providing that, with the exception of property management services for third parties, property brokerage firms must carry out real property brokerage exclusively and estate agents must act exclusively as estate agents; and

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese system governing real property brokerage and estate agency places numerous restrictions on the freedom to provide services.
   Whenever real property in Portugal is at issue, the property brokerage and estate agency activities of entities with their seat or actual domicile in other Member States are subject to Portuguese law.
   Portuguese law lays down seven requirements for access to property brokerage activities, and four requirements for access to estate agency activities.
   The licence requirements in relation to corporate structure are restrictive.
   The requirement concerning professional qualification is also restrictive.
   The Portuguese rules on property brokerage and estate agency have altered the traditional brokerage activity. Instead of brokerage, we have agency.
   The obligation to obtain professional indemnity cover on the terms laid down by Portuguese law constitutes an unjustified restriction.
   The requirement to have positive own capital, determined in accordance with the terms set out in the Portuguese national accounting system, constitutes a discriminatory restriction of the freedom to provide services.
   Making property brokerage firms and estate agents subject to disciplinary control by the Portuguese Administration with regard to the provision of services, without taking into account the supervision of the service provider already carried out in its Member State of establishment, constitutes a restriction within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU.
   The Portuguese rules which provide that estate agents must act exclusively as estate agents and property brokerage firms must carry out almost exclusively property brokerage constitute a restriction of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services on a temporary basis.
   The access requirements make no distinction, and allow no distinction to be made, between situations involving establishment and those involving the temporary provision of services.
   The requirements for entry to the construction sector, as provided for under Portuguese law, are requirements relating to establishment. Portuguese law makes no distinction between establishment and the temporary provision of services.
   The restrictions on the freedom to provide services and of establishment stemming from the Portuguese rules cannot be justified on grounds of public policy.
   Although consumer protection may justify certain restrictions of the fundamental freedom to provide services and that of establishment, the restrictions in question are not proportionate.
   The requirement to be established in Portugal in order to provide services, and the requirement to be licensed, which is intended to check whether the establishment requirements have been fulfilled, are not proportionate measures in relation to the freedom to provide services.
   In particular, it is not reasonable to require the insurance policy to be approved in the host State.
   It is not for reasons of solvency that Portuguese law lays down the requirement to have access to positive own capital.
   It is disproportionate to make the service provider subject in full to the disciplinary control applicable to estate agents and property brokerage firms established in Portugal.


title: Case C-278/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)) — Manfred Otten v Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 — Article 7(2) — Expiry of a rural lease — Temporary acquisition of a reference quantity by a lessor who is not, and does not intend to become, a milk producer — Transfer of the reference quantity, as soon as possible, through the State sales office to a producer)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)) — Manfred Otten v Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen
   (Case C-278/06) (1)

   (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 - Article 7(2) - Expiry of a rural lease - Temporary acquisition of a reference quantity by a lessor who is not, and does not intend to become, a milk producer - Transfer of the reference quantity, as soon as possible, through the State sales office to a producer)
   (2007/C 170/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Manfred Otten

      Defendant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999 (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 73) — Transfer of a reference quantity on the expiry of a rural lease on a dairy holding to the lessor who is not a producer himself
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that, on the expiry of a rural lease on a milk production holding, the attached reference quantity can revert to the lessor in so far as that lessor, not being a producer himself and having no intention to become one, transfers the reference quantity as soon as possible through a State sales office to a third party who has that status.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-259/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/52

         Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-259/05)
   (2005/C 217/109)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by the Kingdom of Spain, having its seat in Madrid, represented by its Agent, Miguel Muñoz Pérez.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF (1) in the part being the object of the action;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought against Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). The aspects of that decision which are specifically challenged are as follows:

               —

               imposition of a correction of 100 % of the expenditure declared in production aid for textile flax in the financial years 1998/1999 and 1999/2000. The applicant claims that the irregularities which would justify the imposition of that correction do not exist, since:

                           —

                           the correction of 100 % of the expenditure is of an exceptional nature which the Commission has not justified;

                           —

                           the OLAF report on which the Commission relies suffers from significant technical defects which make it impossible to extend its findings to the entire flax sector in Spain;

                           —

                           the Commission has not taken into account the activities of the Spanish authorities in that sphere; and

                           —

                           the Commission has not sufficiently justified the general scope of the loss sustained by the Community budget as a result of the irregularities present in the system for the administration of aid for textile flax.

               —

               Imposition of a correction of 25 % of the expenditure declared in production aid for textile flax in the financial years 1996/1997 and 1997/1998. In that regard, the applicant claims:

                           —

                           breach of essential procedural requirements during the procedure which led to the adoption of the financial correction, as that correction was applied without the Member State having had the opportunity to provide the information sought by the Commission before the bilateral meeting was held; and, in the alternative,

                           —

                           absence of irregularities which would justify the financial correction made, since that correction cannot be based on failure to comply with the objectives underlying the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp, when the Commission itself recognises that all the procedural conditions for the grant of the aid were fulfilled.

               —

               Imposition, as regards production aid for hemp, of one correction of 10 % and another of 25 % of the expenditure corresponding to the financial years 1996/1997 and 1997/1998 respectively. On that point, the applicant claims, by way of breach of an essential procedural requirement, failure to fulfil the obligation to hold a bilateral meeting with the Member State concerned. In the alternative, the applicant also claims:

                           —

                           that there was no failure to fulfil an obligation which would justify the imposition of the correction applied, since that correction is based on failure to comply with the objectives underlying the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp, and also an unwarranted comparison between the situation in the flax sector and the situation in the hemp sector; and

                           —

                           inadequate justification for the increase in the percentage of the correction between the financial years 1997 and 1998 and those of 1999 and 2000.

               —

               Imposition, as regards the compensatory aid for bananas, of a correction of 5 % of the expenditure corresponding to the financial year 2000. In relation to this part of the application, the applicant denies the existence of irregularities which would justify the imposition of a correction percentage.

      (1)  OJ L 112 of 3.5.2005, p. 14


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-242/11 ( OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 27 )

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/38

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-242/11
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 211 of 16 July 2011, p. 27
      )
   2011/C 238/67
   The notice in the Official Journal concerning Case T-242/11, Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam), is to read as follows:

      Action brought on 9 May 2011 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam)
      (Case T-242/11)
      2011/C 238/67
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH (Biberach an der Riß, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2011 in case R 2361/2010-2;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in words “3D eXam” for goods in class 10

         Decision of the Examiner: Refused the protection of the international registration to the European Union pursuant to Article 7(1)(b), (c) and Article 7(2) CTMR

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and the failure to take into account prior national registrations/grants of protection, as the International registration at issue: (i) is not purely descriptive, and; (ii) exhibits distinctiveness as the relevant public will consider the sign “3D eXam” as an indication of trade origin.


title: Case C-532/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014  — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014 — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-532/14)
   (2015/C 065/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Toorank Productions BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage with an alcoholic strength by volume of 13,4 % vol, obtained by mixing a purified, alcoholic beverage (base) known as ‘Ferm Fruit’, obtained by fermentation from apple concentrate, with sugar, aromatic substances, colouring and flavouring agents, thickening agents, preservatives and distilled alcohol — in the sense that that alcohol does not exceed, either in volume or in percentage, 49 per cent of the alcohol occurring in the beverage, whereas 51 per cent thereof consists of alcohol obtained by fermentation — should be classified under that heading? If not, should subheading 2208 70 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage such as that should be classified as liqueur under that subheading?


title: Case C-365/06: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 3 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/13

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 3 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-365/06) (1)

   (2008/C 236/21)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case T-332/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — Melli Bank v Council (Applications for interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Council decision — Measure to freeze funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency — Absence of serious and irreparable damage)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/28

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — Melli Bank v Council
   (Case T-332/08 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Council decision - Measure to freeze funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency - Absence of serious and irreparable damage)
   (2008/C 327/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gordon, QC, M. Hoskins, Barrister, T. Din, S. Gadhia and D. Murray, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the application of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29), in so far as Melli Bank plc is included in the list of legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-32/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Wilk v Commission (Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Reimbursement of expenses — Installation allowance — Installation with family at the place of employment — Recovery of undue payments — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Wilk v Commission
   (Case F-32/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Reimbursement of expenses - Installation allowance - Installation with family at the place of employment - Recovery of undue payments - Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2012/C 138/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christian Wilk (Trier, Germany) (represented by: R. Adam, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of decisions ordering recovery of one half of the installation allowance paid to the applicant following his divorce, and an application for damages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Mr Wilk’s action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Mr Wilk is to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 60.


title: Case F-86/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — W v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual agents — Remuneration — Family benefits — Couple of persons of the same sex — Household allowance — Condition governing the grant — Access to legal marriage — Notion — Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/61

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — W v Commission
   (Case F-86/09) (1)

   (Civil Service - Contractual agents - Remuneration - Family benefits - Couple of persons of the same sex - Household allowance - Condition governing the grant - Access to legal marriage - Notion - Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 328/98
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: W (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to grant the household allowance to the applicant on the ground that the applicant and his partner have access to legal marriage in Belgium

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 5 March 2009 and 17 July 2009 refusing W the benefit of the grant of the household allowance provided for in Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Union;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010, p. 40.


title: Case C-148/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-148/13)
   2013/C 171/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Question referred

   What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 11 December 2001 in Case T-46/00: Kvitsjøen AS v Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries — Measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of Norway — Withdrawal of a licence and special fishing permit — Audi alteram partem principle — Principle of proportionality)

text:
C 97/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       20.4.2002
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       11 December 2001                                                         of 23 January 2002
in Case T-46/00: Kvitsjøen AS v Commission of the
                                                                        in Case T-101/00: Miguel Ángel Martı́n de Pablos v
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Fisheries — Measures for the conservation and management
of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of           (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission of the
Norway — Withdrawal of a licence and special fishing                    applicant to the oral test — Action for annulment — Action
permit — Audi alteram partem principle — Principle of                                               for damages)
                         proportionality)
                                                                                (2002/C 97/21)
                          (2002/C 97/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
Case T-46/00, Kvitsjøen AS, established in Fosnavag (Norway),           In Case T-101/00: Miguel Ángel Martı́n de Pablos, residing in
represented by K. Storalm, J. Hoekstra and G. Vanquathem,               Madrid, represented by J. Moreno Núñez, lawyer, of Calle
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-              Santo Cruz de Marcenado 7, Madrid, v Commission of the
mission of the European Communities, represented by T. van              European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia, J. Currall and
Rijn, acting as Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer, with        E. Gippini Fournier) — application, first, for annulment of the
an address for service in Luxembourg: application for the               decision of the selection board refusing to admit the applicant
annulment of the Commission decision of 22 December 1999                to the oral test in open competition COM/A/11/98 and,
withdrawing from the Norwegian fishing vessel Kvitsjøen its             second, for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by
licence and special fishing permit for Community waters and             the late notification of that decision — the Court of First
refusing to grant it that licence and permit before 30 June             Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, Presi-
2000, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed             dent, and N. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Admi-
of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,          nistrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January
Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a judg-        2002, in which it:
ment on 11 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                        1.    Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                        2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those
2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the              relating to the proceedings for interim measures.
      Commission.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                              (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case F-65/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/24

         Action brought on 2 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-65/13)
   2013/C 377/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Mansullo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the rejection of the applicant’s claim addressed to the Commission seeking payment by the Commission of the sum of EUR 10 000 on account of the harm purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of a letter informing him, inter alia, that the Commission had set off his applications for costs, which the Commission had been ordered to pay, against sums owed by the applicant to the Commission.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the claim for compensation of 20 June 2012 contained in the note of 20 June 2012;

               —

               Annul the note of 27 August 2012 bearing, at the top right hand corner of the first of the three pages comprising the note, the reference ‘Ref.Ares (2012)1003126 — 27 August 2012’, which was received by the applicant on 9 October 2012;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 24 October 2012;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the note of 11 February 2013, bearing the reference HR.D.2/MB/ac 170184, written in Italian, consisting of two sheet of paper typed on one side, received by the applicant on 22 March 2013;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000, together with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation with effect from 21 June 2012 until actual payment of that sum;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Joined Cases C-128/03 and C-129/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): AEM SpA (C-128/03), AEM Torino SpA (C-129/03) v Autorità per l'energia elettrica e per il gas and Others (Internal market in electricity — Increased charge for access to and use of the national electricity transmission system — State aid — Directive 96/92/EC — Access to the system — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Joined Cases C-128/03 and C-129/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): AEM SpA (C-128/03), AEM Torino SpA (C-129/03) v Autorità per l'energia elettrica e per il gas and Others (1)

   (Internal market in electricity - Increased charge for access to and use of the national electricity transmission system - State aid - Directive 96/92/EC - Access to the system - Principle of non-discrimination)
   (2005/C 132/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-128/03 and C-129/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), made by decision of 14 January 2003, received at the Court on 24 March 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between AEM SpA (C-128/03), AEM Torino SpA (C-129/03) and Autorità per l'energia elettrica e per il gas and Others, third party: ENEL Produzione SpA — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               A measure such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes an increased charge for a transitional period for access to and use of the national electricity transmission system only on undertakings generating and distributing electricity from hydroelectric or geothermal installations to offset the advantage created for those undertakings, during the transitional period, by the liberalisation of the market in electricity following the implementation of Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, constitutes different treatment of undertakings in relation to charges which is attributable to the nature and general scheme of the system of charges in question. That different treatment is not therefore per se State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
               However, aid cannot be considered separately from the effects of its method of financing. If, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, there is hypothecation of the increased charge for access to and use of the national electricity transmission system to a national scheme of aid, in the sense that the revenue from the increase is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid, that increase is an integral part of that scheme and must therefore be considered together with the latter.

               2.

               The rule of non-discriminatory access to the national electricity transmission system laid down in Directive 96/92 does not preclude a Member State from adopting a measure, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes an increased charge for a transitional period for access to and use of that system only on certain electricity generation and distribution undertakings to offset the advantage created for those undertakings, during the transitional period, by the altered legal framework following the liberalisation of the market in electricity as a result of the implementation of that directive. However, it is a matter for the national court to satisfy itself that the increased charge does not go beyond what is necessary to offset that advantage.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.


title: Case C-175/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry
   (Case C-175/16)
   (2016/C 191/24)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik

      Respondent: SOS-Lapsikylä ry

      Question referred

   Must Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as including within its scope an activity, as described above, performed in a children’s home in which the worker acts as the representative of foster parents of children in care on the parents’ days off, lives during this period with the children in a family-like setting and during this time independently attends equally to the children’s and family’s needs, as parents generally do?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.


title: Case C-373/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2008 — Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2008 — Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Case C-373/08)
   (2008/C 272/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the separating, cleaning and crushing of silicon metal blocks and the subsequent sieving, sorting and packaging of the silicon grains resulting from the crushing constitutes origin-conferring processing or working?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative: is Council Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China (2) valid?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 66, p. 15.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2003 in Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm v Commission of the European Communities (Official — Action for damages — Inadmissible)

text:
19.7.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 171/25
performance for 2001 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,                                        of 8 April 2003
for the Registrar; has given a judgment on 20 May 2003 in
which it:
                                                                            in Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co.
                                                                                KG v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            (Action for annulment — Action now devoid of purpose —
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               No need to give a decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/41)
( 1) OJ C 202, 24. 8. 2002.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG,
                                                                            established in Wismar (Germany), represented by D. Reich,
                                                                            lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for the annulment
                                                                            of Commission Decision 2002/468/EC, of 15 January 2002
                          of 3 April 2003                                   on the State aid implemented by Germany for Klausner Nordic
                                                                            Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar, Mecklenburg-Western
                                                                            Pomerania (OJ 2002 L 165, p. 15) — the Court of First
in Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm v Commission                       Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
               of the European Communities ( 1)                             of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A. W. H. Meij and
                                                                            M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 April
                                                                            2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
       (Official — Action for damages — Inadmissible)
                                                                            1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present action.
                          (2003/C 171/40)
                                                                            2.    The Commission shall pay the costs, including those relating to
                                                                                the procedure for interim relief.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ 156 of 29.6.02.
In Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm, residing in Stockh-
olm, represented by J. R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Devolvé,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application for compen-
sation for the material and non-material damage caused, inter                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
alia, by the length of time taken to process a claim submitted
by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second                                               of 27 March 2003
Chamber), composed of N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung
and W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                            in Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH
3 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
1.    There is no longer any need to give a decision on the action for
      annulment.                                                            (Action for annulment — No need to give a decision —
                                                                            Action for damages — Admissibility — Plea of inadmissi-
2.    The action for damages is dismissed as inadmissible.                          bility joined to the application on the substance)
3.    The Commission shall pay half of the applicant’s costs as well                                   (2003/C 171/42)
      as its own costs. The applicant shall bear the other half of her
      own costs.                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.02.
                                                                            In Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel,
                                                                            established in Planneg (Germany), Jepsen Stahl GmbH, estab-
                                                                            lished in Nittendorf (Germany), LNS — Lothar Niemeyer


title: Case T-189/04: Action brought on 24 May 2004 by C. Van der Haegen against the European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/23

         Action brought on 24 May 2004 by C. Van der Haegen against the European Economic and Social Committee
   (Case T-189/04)
   (2004/C 217/42)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Economic and Social Committee was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 2004 by C. van der Haegen, residing at Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Selection Board for internal competition CESE/C/02/03 not to admit the applicant to the competition tests;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The competition notice at issue required as an entry condition, among others, that each candidate should have five years' working experience in the European institutions, of which at least four years should be with the Economic and Social Committee and/or the Committee of the Regions. For the first part of the competition, for which the applicant lodged his candidature, the competition notice required, in addition, that three years of the total experience should be in relation to the type of functions covered by that part.
   The applicant, who has acquired rich and varied working experience in different European institutions, claims in support of his action that the competition notice is illegal and infringes Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the principles of equality of treatment and of non-discrimination, since nothing can justify the requirement of working experience acquired solely with the Economic and Social Committee and/or the Committee of the Regions, to the exclusion of the other European institutions.


title: Case C-108/08 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2008 by Portela & Companhia SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 11 December 2007 in Case T-10/06, Portela & Companhia SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/8

         Appeal brought on 7 March 2008 by Portela & Companhia SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 11 December 2007 in Case T-10/06, Portela & Companhia SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-108/08 P)
   (2008/C 158/12)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Appellant: Portela & Companhia (represented by J. Conceição Pimenta, advogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz
   By order of 22 April 2008 the President of the Court of Justice ordered the removal of the case from the Court's register.


title: Case T-128/15: Action brought on 20 March 2015 — Rotkäppchen — Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/31

         Action brought on 20 March 2015 — Rotkäppchen — Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD)
   (Case T-128/15)
   (2015/C 171/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rotkäppchen — Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Freyburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alberto Ruiz Moncayo (Entrena, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘RED RIDING HOOD’ — Application for registration No 11 299 831

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 in Case R 1012/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 27 March 2014 in opposition proceedings No B 2 177 817;

               —

               reject the CTM application No 11 299 831;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

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


title: Case T-212/05: Action brought on 30 May 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/37

         Action brought on 30 May 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-212/05)
   (2005/C 193/62)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 May 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the following memoranda [No 02772 of 21 March 2005 [POR Campania Region Ob 1 2000-2006 (No. CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007)], No. 04534 of 13 May 2005 [Docup Ob 2 Lombardy Region 2000-2006 (No. CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014)] and No 04537 of 13 May 2005 [Docup Ob 2 Lombardy Region 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014)]] and all related and prior measures;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-345/04 between the Italian Republic and the Commission (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case F-107/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2011 — AP v Court of Justice (Civil service — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2011 — AP v Court of Justice
   (Case F-107/10)
   (Civil service - Delay - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 138/66
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AP (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of the Court of Justice which, although granting the applicant the entitlement to household allowance from 1 July 2009, only makes the applicant eligible for that allowance from 1 November 2009 and, secondarily, application for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               AP shall bear its own costs.


title: Case C-380/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2012 — Melli Bank plc v Council of the European Union, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing the funds of a bank’s subsidiary — Principle of proportionality — Ownership or control of the entity)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2012 — Melli Bank plc v Council of the European Union, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission
   (Case C-380/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing the funds of a bank’s subsidiary - Principle of proportionality - Ownership or control of the entity)
   2012/C 133/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Melli Bank plc (represented by: D. Anderson and D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister, instructed by S. Gadhia and T. Din, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Szostak, Agents), French Republic, (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, L. Butel and E. Ranaivoson, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented by: S. Hathaway, Agent, and S. Lee, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-246/08 and T-332/08 Melli Bank plc v Council of the European Union by which that court dismissed an application for the annulment in part of Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29), in so far as the appellant’s name appears in the list of persons, bodies and entities to which those provisions apply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Melli Bank plc to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-219/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries — Adjustment of the capacity of Member States' fishing fleets — Entry/exit scheme — Committee for fisheries and aquaculture — Rules on the use of languages)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-219/04) (1)

   (Fisheries - Adjustment of the capacity of Member States' fishing fleets - Entry/exit scheme - Committee for fisheries and aquaculture - Rules on the use of languages)
   (2007/C 140/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1439/2003 of 12 August 2003 laying down implementing rules on the Community Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of Council Regulation No. 2371/2002
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10.01.2004, (formerly Case C-464/03)


title: Case C-200/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) by order of that court of 18 March 2004 in the case of Finanzamt Heidelberg (Heidelberg Tax Office) against iSt Internationale Sprach- und Studententreisen GmbH.

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) by order of that court of 18 March 2004 in the case of Finanzamt Heidelberg (Heidelberg Tax Office) against iSt Internationale Sprach- und Studententreisen GmbH.
   (Case C-200/04)
   (2004/C 190/07)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the (Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 18 March 2004, received at the Court Registry on 5 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt Heidelberg (Heidelberg Tax Office) against iSt Internationale Sprach- und Studententreisen GmbH, on the following question:
   Does the special scheme for travel agents set out in Article 26 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) also apply to transactions entered into by an undertaking which organises ‘High School Programmes’ and ‘College Programmes’ involving periods of three to ten months spent in a foreign country, which are offered to participants by the undertaking in its own name and which are provided using services performed by other taxable persons?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-817/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Health policy — Combating avian influenza — Prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the EU — Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 — Sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals — Manifest and serious disregard for the limits of discretion — Proportionality — Duty of care — Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission

   (Case T-817/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Health policy - Combating avian influenza - Prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the EU - Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 - Sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals - Manifest and serious disregard for the limits of discretion - Proportionality - Duty of care - Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))
   (2016/C 156/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH (Wesel, Germany), Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG (Bürstadt, Germany), Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche (Heinsberg, Germany), Rita Bürgel (Uthleben, Germany), and Norbert Kass (Altenbeken, Germany) (represented by: C. Correll, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants, from 1 January 2010, by reason of the adoption of the prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the European Union contained, first, in Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7) and, subsequently, in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 of 7 January 2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2013 L 47, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH, Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG, Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche, Ms Rita Bürgel and Mr Norbert Kass to pay their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case C-68/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 1999/30/EC — Pollution control — Limit values for concentrations of PM 10 in ambient air)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-68/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 1999/30/EC - Pollution control - Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)
   2013/C 46/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and S. Mortoni, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by S. Varone, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41; now Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1) — Limit values for PM10 particles in ambient air exceeded from 2005

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by having failed to ensure that, for the years 2006 and 2007, concentrations of PM10 in ambient air did not exceed the limit values set in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air in the 55 Italian zones and agglomerations referred to in the European Commission’s letter of formal notice of 2 February 2009, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-390/04: Action brought on 28 September 2004 by Carla Piccinni-Leopardi, Carlos Martínez Mongay and Georgis Katalagarianakis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/48

         Action brought on 28 September 2004 by Carla Piccinni-Leopardi, Carlos Martínez Mongay and Georgis Katalagarianakis against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-390/04)
   (2004/C 300/93)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 September 2004 by Carla Piccinni-Leopardi and Carlos Martínez Mongay, residing in Brussels, and by Georgis Katalagarianakis, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision awarding merit and priority points to the applicants by way of credit for the past and the decision not to promote them to grade A 4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicants in these proceedings contest the defendant's decision not to award them specific merit or priority points in the course of the 2003 promotions procedure to take account of the modification of their classification in grade on recruitment and not to promote them to grade A 4 in the course of that procedure.
   In support of their claims they plead:

               —

               infringement of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations insofar as, even though their staff reports were drawn up beforehand, the applicants were none the less subject to a blanket award of credit for past merit. The applicants point out in that connection that, in their view, the award of one transitional point for seniority in grade disregards the principle that promotion should follow a consideration of the comparative merits of officials;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of the right to career advancement. In that regard, the applicants point out that those officials who have not been promoted for a long time because their performance was not considered sufficiently deserving, have been awarded priority points individually and will receive them in the 2004 promotions procedure. On the other hand, the applicants, whose merits, it is alleged, could not be taken into account at their true value from the start of their career, are treated in the same way as officials who were not eligible for classification in a higher grade on recruitment;

               —

               infringement of Article 233 EC. In that regard they point out that, in their view, the question which arises here is whether, since the general implementing provisions relating to the classification criteria have been declared unlawful and the Commission has undertaken to reconsider the classification of the many officials recruited under those general provisions, the decision to fix the applicants' classification on recruitment at the higher grade in the career bracket may be so restrictive as to deprive it of any useful effect.


title: Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Erich Biedermann, Walter W. Hedderich and Alfred Wienrich against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Case T-173/95)

text:
No C 315/ 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25 . 11 . 95
Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Valentino Chesi,              1995 by Erich Biedermann, Walter W. Hedderich and
Margot Jost and Ralph Loebisch against the Council of the            Alfred Wienrich, residing in Germany, represented by
                       European Union                                Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,
                       ( Case T-l 72/95 )                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                     Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
                         ( 95/C 315/35 )
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     — annul the applicants ' pension statements for December
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  1994, drawn up pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC )
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994, inasmuch as that
Communities on 19 September 1995 by Valentino Chesi,                     regulation lays down a weighting for Germany at the
Margot Jost and Ralph Loebisch, residing in Germany,                     rate fixed for its capital , Berlin, only with effect from
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of                  1 July 1994 and not from 3 October 1990, and , in so far
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              as may be necessary, annul the decision of the Court of
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 , Rue Glesener.               Auditors of 18 July 1995 rejecting the applicants '
                                                                         complaint,
The applicants claim that the Court should :                         — reinstate the applicants ' pension rights in full, weighted
                                                                         at the rate fixed for Berlin, with effect from 3 October
— annul the applicants' pension statements for December                  1990 ,
    1994, drawn up pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC )
    No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994 , inasmuch as that               — order the defendant to pay default interest on the
    Regulation lays down a weighting for Germany at the                  pension arrears for the period from 3 October 1990 to
    rate fixed for its capital, Berlin , only with effect from           30 June 1994 , calculated in relation to the same period ,
    1 July 1994 and not from 3 October 1990 , and, in so far             at the annual rate of 10% ,
    as may be necessary, annul the decision of the Council of
    19 June 1995 rejecting the applicants' complaint,                — order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
— reinstate the applicants' pension rights in full , weighted        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    at the rate fixed for Berlin, with effect from 3 October
    1990 ,                                                           The pleas and main arguments are the same as those in Case
                                                                     T-171 /95 .
— order the defendant to pay default interest on the
    pension arrears for the period from 3 October 1990 to
    30 June 1994 , calculated in relation to the same period,
    at the annual rate of 10% ,
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
                                                                     Action brought on 25 September 1995 by BASF Lacke +
                                                                     Farben AG against the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-175 /95
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those in Case
T-171 /95 .
                                                                                ( 95 /C 315/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 25 September
Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Erich                         1995 by BASF Lacke + Farben AG, represented by
Biedermann, Walter W. Hedderich and Alfred Wienrich                  Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsanwalt, Meerbusch ( Federal
against the Court of Auditors of the European                        Republic of Germany ), with an address for service in
                          Communities                                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolters , 1 1 Rue
                       ( Case T-173/95 )                             Goethe .
                         ( 95/C 315/36 )
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
               (Language of the case: French)                        — annul the defendant's decision of 12 July 1995 , notified
                                                                         on 21 July 1995 , concerning a proceeding under
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European                  Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Case IV/33.802 — BASF
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Lacke + Farben AG and SA Accinauto ) in so far as it
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September                     concerns the applicant,


title: Case T-399/06: Action brought on 27 December 2006 — giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/34

         Action brought on 27 December 2006 — giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY)
   (Case T-399/06)
   (2007/C 42/60)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Giropay GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 26 October 2006 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in appeal case R 308/2005-4 in relation to Community trade mark application No 2 843 514 ‘GIROPAY’;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GIROPAY’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 36-38 and 42 (Application No 2 843 514).

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The mark applied for does not present any descriptive indications for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). In addition, the mark applied for is particularly capable of being perceived by the relevant public as a distinctive sign.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-437/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  7 February 2006  — Brink's Security Luxembourg v Commission (Application for interim measures — Urgency — Absence)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/30

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2006 — Brink's Security Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-437/05 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Urgency - Absence)
   (2006/C 86/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Brink's Security Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Point and G. Dauphin, lawyers)

      Defendan): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Manhaeve, M. Šimerdová and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Group 4 Falck SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Molitor, P. Lopes da Silva, N. Cambonie and N. Bogelmann, lawyers)
   Application for
   interim measures essentially asking, firstly, that the Commission enjoined from signing the contract relating to Call for tenders No 16/2005/OIL (buildings security and surveillance), secondly, should the Commission have already concluded that contract, that its performance be suspended until the Court has ruled on the substance of the action and, thirdly, that the adoption of other measures be ordered
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-539/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Daniel Bowman v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Daniel Bowman v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
   (Case C-539/15)
   (2016/C 027/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daniel Bowman

      Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1), and also having regard to Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that

                           a)

                           a provision in a collective agreement which provides for a longer period for incremental advancement for employment at the start of a career, thereby making it more difficult to advance to the next salary step, constitutes an indirect difference in treatment based on age,

                           b)

                           and, if such is the case, that such a rule is appropriate and necessary in the light of the limited professional experience at the start of a career?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).