title: Case T-135/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CLORALEX — Earlier national word marks CLOROX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)
   (Case T-135/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CLORALEX - Earlier national word marks CLOROX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 250/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: The Clorox Company (Oakland, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Chaudri, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Industrias Alen SA de CV (Nuevo León, Mexico) (represented by: J. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between The Clorox Company and Industrias Alen SA de CV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by The Clorox Company;

               3.

               Orders Industrias Alen SA de CV to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-493/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by decision of that court of 9 June 2004 in the case of L.H. Piatkowski against Belastingsdienst Grote ondernemingen Eindhoven

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by decision of that court of 9 June 2004 in the case of L.H. Piatkowski against Belastingsdienst Grote ondernemingen Eindhoven
   (Case C-493/04)
   (2005/C 31/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch (Regional Court of Appeal, 'S-Hertogenbosch) (Netherlands) of 9 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of L.H. Piatkowski against Belastingsdienst Grote ondernemingen Eindhoven on the following question:
   Does Community law, in particular the right to freedom of movement and Article 14c(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) (version applicable in 1998), preclude the Netherlands from levying national insurance contributions on interest income paid by a company established in the Netherlands to a Belgian resident to whom under Article 14c(b), in conjunction with Annex VII to Regulation No 1408/71, both Netherlands and Belgian social security legislation are applicable?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community


22 . 4 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 101 /5
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht of            how is the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by
Land Brandenburg by order of that court of 21 February                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2587/91 , to be interpreted for the
1995 in the case of Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich                   purposes of the tariff classification of the Xerox 3010 and
      Biiker GmbH &c Co KG v. Hauptzollamt Cottbus                      Xerox 3010 Editor machines described in the body of the
                          ( Case C-64/95 )                              present reference ? ( J )
                            ( 95/C 101 /11 )
                                                                        f 1 ) The Xerox 3010 and Xerox 3010 Editor machines can transmit
                                                                              fax messages and copy at the same time , while the Xerox 3010
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Editor can also edit the images received ( enlargement or
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of                      reduction of the full image or part of it). Photocopying takes
the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court ) of Land Brandenburg of                    place by means of a scanner which scans the information in a
21 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                   document and stores it in the form of digital units in the
on 10 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    machine's memory, from where it can be retrieved for printing
Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich Biiker GmbFl & Co KG                        in legible form on paper.
v. Flauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Cottbus on the
following questions :
1 . has Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1932/93 of
      16 July 1993 as rectified by the corrigendum published
      in the Official Journal of the European Communities (' )
      come into being with legal effect ?                                       Removal from the register of Case C-181/94 (')
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /13 )
2 . If so, are the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1932/93 also applicable to imports of sour cherries            By order of 13 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
      effected up until 20 July 1993 ?                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-181/94 : Commission of the
3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative :                 European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
      (a ) were the preconditions present in 1993 for a
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
            measure for the organization of the market for sour
            cherries in 1993 ?
      ( b ) Is the minimum price system a permissible,
            appropriate measure for eliminating the
            disturbance to the market ?
      (c ) Is the minimum price system compatible with the                      Removal from the register of Case C-223/94 ( J )
            Interim Agreements of 25 February 1992 between
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/14 )
            the European Community and the Republic of
            Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and
            Slovak Federal Republic ?                                   By order of 20 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
t 1 ) OJ No L 176 , 20 . 7. 1993 , p. 29 .                              from the register of Case C-223/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v . Ireland .
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tariefcommissie
by decision of that court of 3 March 1995 in the case of
Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v. Inspecteur
              der Invoerrechten en Acciinzen, Venlo
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-265/94 ( l )
                            Case C-67/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 / 15
                            ( 95/C 101/12 )
                                                                        By order of 15 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities by a decision of the                           from the register of Case C-265/94 : Commission of the
Tariefcommissie (Administrative Court for Customs and                   European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Excise ) of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 13 March 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
case of Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v.
Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Inspector of
Customs and Excise ), Venlo, on the following question:


title: Case T-244/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/40

         Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission
   (Case T-244/13)
   2013/C 171/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Cases C-250/02, C-251/02, C-252/02, C-253/02 and C-256/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgment of that Court of 23 January 2002 in the cases of Telecom Italia Mobile (C-250/02), BLU SpA, intervener: Albacom (C-251/02), Telecom Italia SpA, intervener: Telemar (C-252/02), Omnitel Pronto Italia SpA (C-253/02), and WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA (C-256/02) against Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Econimica (now Ministero dell' Economia e delle Finanze) and Ministero delle Comunicazioni

text:
C 219/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                          legislation, subjecting undertakings active on the Italian
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgment of                         market to conditions more oppressive than those pro-
that Court of 23 January 2002 in the cases of Telecom                        vided for by those provisions of Community law in the
Italia Mobile (C-250/02), BLU SpA, intervener: Albacom                       other States of the Union?
(C-251/02), Telecom Italia SpA, intervener: Telemar
(C-252/02), Omnitel Pronto Italia SpA (C-253/02), and
WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA (C-256/02) against Mini-                    (1 ) OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15.
stero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione
Econimica (now Ministero dell’ Economia e delle Finanze)
              and Ministero delle Comunicazioni
(Cases C-250/02, C-251/02, C-252/02, C-253/02 and C-256/
                               02)
                        (2002/C 219/09)                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
                                                                       of that court dated 17 June 2002, in the case of La Mer
                                                                            Technology Inc. against Laboratoires Goemar S.A.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-                                      (Case C-259/02)
tivo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court for
Lazio) of 23 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                (2002/C 219/10)
10 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Telecom
Italia Mobile (C-250/02), BLU SpA, intervener: Albacom
(C-251/02), Telecom Italia SpA, intervener: Telemar (C-252/
02), Omnitel Pronto Italia SpA (C-253/02), and WIND Teleco-
municazioni SpA (C-256/02) against Ministero del Tesoro, del
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Bilancio e della Programmazione Econimica (now Ministero
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
dell’ Economia e delle Finanze) and Ministero delle Comunica-
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 17 June
zioni (Ministry of the Treasury, Budget and Economic Planning
                                                                       2002, which was received at the Court Registry on 15 July
(now Ministry of Economy and Finance) and Ministry of
                                                                       2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La Mer Technology
Communications) on the following questions:
                                                                       Inc. and Laboratoires Goemar S.A. on the following questions:
1)    Do Articles 6 and 11 of Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the            1.    What factors should be taken into account when deciding
      European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997                whether a mark has been ‘put to genuine use’ in a Member
      on a common framework for general authorizations and                   State within the meaning of Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of
      individual licences in the field of telecommunications                 the First Council Directive 89/104 ( 1) of 21 December
      services permit Member States to require only those                    1988?
      undertakings which hold a licence or authorisation to
      carry on telecommunications activities to make financial
      payments, whatever they may be called, other than and            In particular:
      in addition to those provided for by that Directive, and
      are such payments in keeping with the principle of non-
      discrimination?                                                  2.    Should the extent of use of the mark in relation to the
                                                                             goods or services for which the mark is registered in the
                                                                             Member State be taken into account?
2)    Do Articles 6 and 11 of Directive 97/13/EC permit
      Member States to introduce direct or indirect taxes or
      other charges of a fiscal nature on activities consisting        3.    Is any amount of use however small, sufficient if it was
      of installing and supplying public telecommunications                  made with no purpose other than commercially dealing
      networks, the supply to the public of voice telephony                  in the goods or providing the service concerned?
      services and mobile and personal communication ser-
      vices, determined in variable percentage terms and having        4.    If the answer to the foregoing question is ‘no’ what is the
      equivalent effect to those prohibited by the Community                 test for determining how much use is sufficient, and in
      legislation?                                                           particular does that test include a consideration of nature
                                                                             and size of the business of the registered proprietor?
3)    May Articles 2, 3 and 95 of the Treaty and Article 12 of
      Directive 97/13/EC be interpreted to mean that it is not         5.    Is token or sham use to be disregarded, and in particular
      permissible for the Member States to introduce financial               is use whose sole or predominant purpose is defeating a
      charges contrary to the provisions of the harmonising                  potential claim for revocation to be disregarded?


title: Case T-370/02: Action brought on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG and six other undertakings against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.3.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 55/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September                Community trade mark          Word mark ‘SnMIX’ — Appli-
      2002 in the appeal procedure R 337/2001-1;                         applied for:                  cation No 1422294
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Goods or services:            Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                                                                                allic semi-finished products in the
                                                                                form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
                                                                                sections and rods)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                         Board of Appeal:              examiner
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘SnPUR’ — Appli-
applied for:                  cation No 1421775                          Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
Goods or services:            Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                              allic semi-finished products in the        Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement                of
                              form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,                                           Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                              sections and rods)                                                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                since the mark is not descrip-
Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the                                                 tive.
Board of Appeal:              examiner
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of appeal
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement                of
                                    Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of           Action brought on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-
                                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94             Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG and
                                    since the mark is not descrip-       six other undertakings against the Commission of the
                                    tive.                                                   European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-370/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/80)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-369/02)                                  European Communities on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-
                                                                         Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG, established
                                                                         in Lehen/Pfaffing (Germany), Bayerland eG, established in
                         (2003/C 55/79)                                  Nuremberg (Germany), Bergpracht-Milchwerk GmbH & Co,
                                                                         established in Tettnang (Germany), Hochland AG, established
                  (Language of the case: German)                         in Heimenkirch (Germany), Käserei Champignon Hofmeister
                                                                         GmbH & Co. KG, established in Lauben (Germany), Milchwerk
                                                                         Crailsheim-Dinkelsbühl eG, established in Crailsheim (Germ-
                                                                         any) and Rücker GmbH, established in Aurich (Germany),
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           represented by J. Salzwedel and M.J. Werner, lawyers, with an
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                  address for service in Luxembourg.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),                      The applicants claim that the Court should:
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.
                                                                         —     annul the inclusion, pursuant to Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the
                                                                               name ‘Feta’, of the name ‘Feta’ (PDO) as a protected
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September                      designation of origin (PDO) in the register of protected
      2002 in the appeal procedure R 335/2001-1;                               designations of origin;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/30                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 17 December 2002 by Technische
                                                                              Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicants, the main producers of the cow-milk feta
produced in Germany, seek the annulment of Commission                                                  (Case T-378/02)
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 55/81)
The applicants submit first of all that the information in                                      (Language of the case: German)
Greece’s notification of 17 January 1995 does not satisfy the
formal requirements for the inclusion of ‘Feta’ in the list of
protected designations of origin. That is so because Greece’s
application was out of time, precluding the Commission from                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
registering ‘Feta’ under the shortened procedure pursuant to                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 ( 2). Furthermore, it               European Communities on 17 December 2002 by Technische
is not possible for the name ‘Feta’ to be protected under                     Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, whose registered office is in
Article 17 since Greece did not introduce protection of feta at               Ilmenau (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and C. Arhold,
national level until 11 January 1994, that is to say almost six               Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
months after Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 entered into force.
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants further submit that the contested regulation                   —     annul the Commission’s decision of 2 October 2002,
does not comply in the slightest with the grounds of the                            C(2002) 2147 endg., on State aid by Germany in favour
decision of the Court of Justice of 16 March 1999 (3), according                    of Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;
to which the Commission must accord decisive importance to
the markets which, at the time of Greece’s application,                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
had already lawfully developed in the Member States and
throughout the world. Moreover, the product ‘feta’ is not
capable of being protected since it is not a protected desig-
nation of origin but rather a generic name. Under Article 3(1)                Pleas in law and main arguments
of Regulation No 2081/92 generic names cannot be registered.
Furthermore, feta is a product which originates not just from
Greece, but from the Mediterranean and Balkan region. Feta                    The applicant acquired four glass production lines from
has been produced and consumed in considerable quantities                     Ilmenauer Glaswerke GmbH, in liquidation, an undertaking of
for decades in six Member States. In addition, the burden rests               the German Bundesanstalt für vereinigungsbedingte Son-
with Greece to prove that feta is not a generic name; it has not              deraufgaben (Federal Institution for Special Tasks arising from
adduced evidence discharging this burden.                                     Unification) (‘BvS’). In the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                              classified two measures by Germany in connection with that
                                                                              acquisition as State aid: There was a guarantee in favour of BvS
                                                                              for a remaining purchase price balance of DEM 1,8 million.
The applicants also argue that the requirements of Articles 2                 BvS had declared itself willing to replace that guarantee by a
and 4 of Regulation No 2081/92 are not met. Feta is not a                     land charge. In addition, Thüringer Aufbaubank (Thüringen
traditional geographic name. The name ‘feta’ comes from                       Bank for Reconstruction) (‘TAB’) had granted the applicant a
Italian and means ‘slice’, and was a generic name before the                  loan of DEM 2,0 million. The Commission held these measures
adoption of Regulation No 2081/92 and thus allowed to be                      incompatible with the common market.
used in intra-Community trade between Member States. Finally
the registration of ‘Feta’ infringes the Community-law funda-
mental rights to protection of property and of exercise of a                  The applicant argues that the loan by TAB to the applicant
profession, nor is the injury to property justified by Article 30             was not an aid, because it corresponded to market conditions,
EC.                                                                           was covered by a general aid regulation approved by the
                                                                              Commission, and served to compensate for a claim for
                                                                              damages of the applicant against the Land Thüringen which
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002
                                                                              was justified from the standpoint of State liability. The
     amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard             replacement of the guarantee in respect of the residual
     to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p. 10).                               purchase price for three production lines by a land charge was
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the               also no aid.
     protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
     for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).
( 3) Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/        The applicant further argues that the Commission has not
     96 and C-299/96 Denmark and Others v Commission [1999]                   demonstrated that the measures could affect trade between
     ECR I-1541.                                                              Member States. Furthermore, refusal of authorisation under
                                                                              Article 87(3)(c) EC was based on obvious errors of assessment
                                                                              and reasoning. The Commission refused to take important
                                                                              facts into account in the considerations which it took as the


title: Case C-335/03: Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Portuguese Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/4                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
      —     by failing to impose a provisional prohibition of             Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Portuguese Republic
            fishing on vessels flying its flag or registered in its           against Commission of the European Communities
            territory when the quota allocated to it had been
            exhausted, and by having finally prohibited fishing
            when its quota had already been greatly exceeded in
            the fishing years 1994 to 1996;                                                        (Case C-335/03)
      —     by failing to bring criminal or administrative pro-
            ceedings against the captains or any other persons                                     (2003/C 239/06)
            responsible for overfishing;
      —     by failing to ensure the effective operation of a
            validation system which included cross-checking
            and verification of data by means of a computerised
            data-base,
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        Communities on 31 July 2003 by the Portuguese Republic,
      in the sphere of the management and monitoring of                   represented by Luís Fernandes, acting as Agent, and Carlos
      fishing quotas;                                                     Botelho Moniz and Eduardo Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
2)    order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
Portugal has failed to fulfil completely its Community obli-              —     annul Commission Decision No 2003/364/EC ( 1) of
gations concerning rules for the use of its catch quotas,                       15 May 2003 excluding from Community financing
monitoring and inspection, proceedings against the fishermen                    certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
in question and the setting-up of a computerised data-base.                     the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
During the fishing years 1994 to 1996, the Portuguese                           Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) so far as it
Republic:                                                                       concerns expenditure relating to Portugal;
a)    infringed Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No               —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
      3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Com-
      munity system for fisheries and aquaculture, which
      requires the Member States to adopt rules for the use of
      the quotas allocated to them;
b)    failed to ensure sufficient monitoring of fishing activities
      and inspection of the fishing fleet and the unloading and           Pleas in law and main arguments
      recording of catches;
                                                                          —     Error in law as a result of the misapplication of Article 6(5)
c)    infringed Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                                of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92. The Portuguese Govern-
      2847/93 which lays down obligations relating to suspen-
                                                                                ment is of the view that that rule was complied with in
      sion of fishing;
                                                                                the year in question, since applications for ‘animal’ aid
                                                                                and the relevant checks must be understood and assessed
d)    infringed the obligation to bring criminal or administrat-                from the point of view of the unicity of the holding, that
      ive proceedings against the natural or legal persons                      is, taken globally ‘animal’ aid schemes as a whole
      responsible for overfishing;                                              (rather than each of the schemes independently, as the
                                                                                Commission appears to maintain). Thus:
e)    infringed Article 19(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/
      93, which requires the Member States to establish a
      validation system comprising, in particular, cross-check-                 —     Portugal adopted an approach centring on holdings,
      ing and verification of data resulting from those obli-                         devising an integrated application common to the
      gations and to create a computerised data-base in which                         various ‘animal’ aid schemes available under the
      those data are stored.                                                          EAGGF Guarantee section, in the context of which
                                                                                the checks are carried out. In the year in question,
                                                                                the minimum percentage of lawful applications were
                                                                                checked on the spot during the retention period.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.10.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 239/5
     —    Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, in its           —     Breach of the obligation to provide reasons enshrined in
          wording in force at the material time, did not                      Article 253 of the EC Treaty: the Commission’s decision
          distinguish between the various aid schemes so far                  does not indicate what aspect of the conduct of the
          as concerned the obligation to check 5 % of the                     Portuguese authorities was contrary to Community law
          ‘animal’ aid applications during the retention period,              nor which Community legislation was infringed thereby.
          so that, contrary to the Commission’s contention,                   The decision therefore does not fulfil the obligation to
          the Portuguese authorities acted in conformity with                 provide reasons. That requirement is stricter where at
          the provision in issue.                                             issue is the adoption of measures which impose sanctions
                                                                              on or entail adverse consequences, in particular in
                                                                              financial terms, for those to whom it is addressed, as in
                                                                              the present case. In those circumstances, fulfilment of the
                                                                              obligation to provide reasons is essential in order to
                                                                              protect the rights of defence of the person or body
                                                                              affected by the adverse consequences flowing from the
     —    by applying in this case Article 6(5) of Regulation                 measure.
          No 3887/92 as amended by Regulation (EC)
          No 2801/99, rather than the version in force at
          the material time, the Commission is applying
          retrospectively a new provision, which is contrary            (1 ) OJ 2003 L 124, p. 45.
          to the general principles of law common to the
          Member States.
—    Error of assessment of the facts with regard to the
     expenditure declared by the Portuguese authorities for
     1999 concerning the premium for the maintenance of                 Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission
     the suckler cow herd:                                              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Denmark
                                                                                (Case C-343/03)
     —    The alleged irregularities regarding the identification
          of the animals, which the Commission claims to                                         (2003/C 239/07)
          have detected in checks carried out in holdings in
          the Alentejo region in September 2000, are of
          no relevance to the application of the flat-rate
          corrections applied to expenditure in respect of
          the 1999 financial year. In the alternative, the              An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
          Portuguese Government takes the view that the                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
          irregularities alleged by the Commission are irrel-           on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
          evant, since Portugal has complied and continues to           Communities, represented by H.P. Hartvig, acting as Agent,
          comply with the rules relating to the identification          with an address for service in Luxembourg.
          of bovine animals.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1.    declare that
     —    The Commission further alleges, as the basis for
          applying the financial correction, that some animals                —    by failing to adopt detailed rules for the utilisation
          bore producer markings bearing an identification                         of the quotas allocated to Denmark,
          number which was not that accorded by the com-
          petent authorities, and considers that the practice
          increases the risk that a premium might be paid                     —    by failing to ensure compliance with the EC pro-
          more than once in respect of the same animal.                            visions on the conservation of fishery resources by
          Again in that respect the Commission erred in its                        means of monitoring of fishing activity, appropriate
          assessment of the relevant facts by failing to take                      inspections of landings and registration of catches,
          account of the actual circumstances in which the                         and criminal or administrative proceedings against
          said practice occurred.                                                  those responsible for overfishing,


title: Case C-78/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO. (Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Sick leave — Annual leave coinciding with sick leave — Entitlement to take paid annual leave at another time)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO.
   (Case C-78/11) (1)

   (Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Sick leave - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take paid annual leave at another time)
   2012/C 250/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

      Defendants: Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, p. 9) — Leave coincides with periods of temporary incapacity for work during periods of sick leave — National regulations do not allow the interruption of paid annual leave and its subsequent recovery in its entirety or for the remaining period

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions under which a worker who becomes unfit for work during a period of paid annual leave is not entitled subsequently to the paid annual leave which coincided with the period of unfitness for work.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-175/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil de Prud'hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber), by judgment of that tribunal of 14 April 1999 in the case of Didier Mayeur aginst APIM Association Promotion de l'Information Messine

text:
17.7.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 204/29
     interpreted as permitting a Member State to enact national           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
     legislation under which:                                             Administratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First
                                                                          Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 11 May
     (a) a worker does not begin to accrue rights to the paid             1999 in the case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des
         annual leave specified in Article 7 (or to derive any                          Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire
         benefits consequent thereon) until he has completed
         a qualifying period of employment with the same                                            (Case C-177/99)
         employer; but
                                                                                (1999/C 204/55)
     (b) once that qualifying period has been completed, his
         employment during the qualifying period is taken into
         account for the purposes of computing his leave                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         entitlement?                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admi-
                                                                          nistratif (Administrative Court), Nantes (First Chamber),
                                                                          France, of 11 May 1999, which was received at the Court
2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, what are the factors             Registry on 17 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
     that the national court should take into account in order            case of Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de
     to determine whether a particular qualifying period of               Maine-et-Loire, on the following question:
     employment with the same employer is lawful and pro-
     portionate? In particular, is it legitimate for a Member State
     to take into account the cost for employers of conferring            ‘Are the provisions of the Decision of 28 July 1989 of the
     the rights on those workers who are employed for less                Council of the European Communities (1) authorising the
     than the qualifying period?                                          French Government to derogate from the limit imposed by the
                                                                          Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 and
                                                                          to extend to third parties exclusions of expenditure on
                                                                          accommodation, restaurants, hospitality and entertainment
                                                                          from the right to deduct tax compatible, first, with the
                                                                          objectives of the Sixth Directive and in particular Article 27
                                                                          thereof which stases that “the Council, acting unanimously on
                                                                          a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member
                                                                          State to introduce special measures for derogation from the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil de                      provisions of this directive, in order to simplify the procedure
Prud’hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber),                     for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax
by judgment of that tribunal of 14 April 1999 in the case                 evasion or avoidance”, and, second, with the principle of
of Didier Mayeur aginst APIM Association Promotion de                     proportionality between the tax objective pursued and the
                     l’Information Messine                                means employed?’
                         (Case C-175/99)                                  (1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the
                                                                              French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second
                                                                              subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC
                         (1999/C 204/54)                                      on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                              to turnover taxes (OJ L 239, p. 21).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil de
Prud’hommes, Metz (Miscellaneous Activities Chamber) of
14 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 11 May
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Didier Mayeur
against APIM Association Promotion de l’Information Messine.
The Labour Tribunal, Metz, Miscellaneous Activities Chamber,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksge-
requests the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following           richt Bregenz by order of that court of 29 December 1998
question:                                                                  in the land registration case of Doris Salzmann née Greif
‘Is Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approxi-                                        (Case C-178/99)
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of                                      (1999/C 204/56)
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (1) applicable
where the activity of a legal person governed by private law is           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
transferred to a legal person governed by public law? Must                European Communities by an order of the Bezirksgericht
application of that directive be excluded where the activity is           Bregenz (District Court, Bregenz), Austria, of 29 December
transferred to a public service of an administrative nature?’             1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 May
                                                                          1999, for a preliminary ruling in the land registration case of
                                                                          Doris Salzmann née Greif on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 61 of 5.3.1977, p. 26.
                                                                          1. May nationals of a Member State of the European Union
                                                                               rely on free movement of capital even if a capital trans-
                                                                               action has no transnational element?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-101/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV (Protection of designations used in marketing of milk and milk products — Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 — Directive 89/398/EEC — Use of the designation cheese to describe a dietary product in which the natural fat has been replaced by vegetable fat)

text:
C 63/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.3.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2. In the case of products derived from milk in which a natural
                                                                               constituent of milk has been replaced by a foreign substance, a
                                                                               designation such as ‘Dietary cheese (Dietary soft cheese) contain-
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                       ing vegetable oil for a fat-modified diet’ may not be used even
                                                                               when that designation is accompanied by additional descriptions
                                                                               on the products’ packaging, such as ‘This dietary cheese is rich in
                      of 16 December 1999                                      polyunsaturated fats’ or ‘This dietary cheese is ideal for a
                                                                               cholesterol-conscious lifestyle’.
in Case C-101/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
the Bundesgerichtshof): Union Deutsche Lebensmit-
telwerke GmbH v Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der
                         Wirtschaft eV (1)
(Protection of designations used in marketing of milk and
milk products — Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 — Directive
89/398/EEC — Use of the designation cheese to describe a                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
dietary product in which the natural fat has been replaced by
                            vegetable fat)                                                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                           (2000/C 63/06)
                                                                           in Case C-150/98 P: Economic and Social Committee
                                                                                v E ( 1)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Appeal — Officials — Freedom of expression in relation to
                                                                           hierarchical superiors — Duty of loyalty and obligation to
                                                                           uphold the dignity of the service — Disciplinary measure —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             Relegation in step)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/07)
In Case C-101/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichts-                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
hof, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Union Deutsche Lebensmit-
telwerke GmbH and Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Wirtschaft eV — on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of                                      in the European Court Reports)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 of 2 July 1987 on the
protection of designations used in marketing of milk and milk              In Case C-150/98 P: Economic and Social Committee (Agent:
products (OJ 1987 L 182, p. 36) and of Article 3(2) of Council             M. Bermejo Garde) — appeal against the judgment of the
Directive 89/398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation                    Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 February 1998
of the laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended           in Case T-183/96 Economic and Social Committee v E [1998]
for particular nutritional uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27) — the               ECR I-A-67 and II-159, seeking to have that judgment set
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rappor-                  aside, the other party to the proceedings being E, former
teur), President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of             official of the Economic and Social Committee, residing in
the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges;                   Brussels, Belgium — the Court (Second Chamber), composed
A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                 of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December             G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
1999, in which it has ruled:                                               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           16 December 1999, in which it:
1. Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 of 2 July           1. Dismisses the appeal;
    1987 on the protection of designations used in marketing of
    milk and milk products, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of       2. Orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.
    Council Directive 89/398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
    foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses, is to be          (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
    interpreted as meaning that a milk product in which the milk fat
    has been replaced by vegetable fat for dietetic reasons may not be
    designated as ‘cheese’.


title: Case T-365/09: Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki v OHIM — Free (FREE)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/81

         Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki v OHIM — Free (FREE)
   (Case T-365/09)
   2009/C 267/144
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Koliothomas and K. Papadiamantis, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Free SAS (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2009 in case R 1346/2008-1;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs before the Court of First Instance; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs incurred in such proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “FREE”, for goods in class 16

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration of the word mark “FREE” for services in class 38; French trade mark registration of the figurative mark “FREE — LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX” for services in classes 35 and 38

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for its finding that there was similarity between the goods in class 16 covered by the Community trade mark concerned and services in class 38 covered by the earlier trade mark.


title: Case T-199/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Gnemmi v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Reports procedure — Career development review — 2003 Appraisal exercise — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Gnemmi v Commission
   (Case T-199/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Reports procedure - Career development review - 2003 Appraisal exercise - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   (2007/C 170/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Laura Gnemmi (Arona, Italy) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, and subsequently F. Frabetti alone)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Berscheid and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, principally, of the 2003 appraisal exercise in relation to the applicant; and, alternatively, of the applicant's career development review for that exercise.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case C-514/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2012 — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Province of Salzburg

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2012 — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Province of Salzburg
   (Case C-514/12)
   2013/C 63/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Salzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH

      Defendant: Province of Salzburg

      Question referred

   Do Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 492/2011 (1) preclude national legislation (here, Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Salzburger Landesvertragsbedienstetengesetz) under which, for the purposes of determining the effective date for advancement, a public employer takes into account all uninterrupted periods of service which its employees have completed with it, but takes into account, on an all-inclusive basis from a certain age, only a proportion of the periods of service which its employees have completed with other public or private employers whether within Austria or in other EU or EEA States?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).


title: Case C-36/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Première Instance, Liège (Seventh Chamber), by judgment of that court of 8 February 1999 in the case of Idéal Tourisme SA against the Belgian State

text:
C 100/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.4.1999
3. Is the anwer to question 1 above affected by the fact              liability, Giovanni Bertolotto and Compagnia Assicuratrice
     that:                                                            RAS SpA, having its registered office in Milan, on the
                                                                      following questions:
     (a) the supply of goods to the customer is described as
         being on interest free' credit terms;                       (a) Does the decision of the CNF (1), approved by
                                                                           Ministerial Decree No 585/94, fixing binding tariffs
     (b) the customer signs a loan agreement with a                        for the professional activity of lawyers, come within
         finance house at the time of the sale transaction,                the scope of the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the EC
         the terms of which include:                                       Treaty?
         (i)   a promise by the finance house to pay the                   If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative:
               retailer a sum equal to the loan (which was
               for amount equal to the advertised price of
               the goods);                                            (b) Does the case none the less correspond to one of the
                                                                           situations envisaged in Article 85(3) of the Treaty to
         (ii) a statement that the interest rate applying to               which that prohibition does not apply?
               the loan is 0 %'; and
                                                                      (1) Consiglio Nazionale Forense (National Legal Council).
         (iii) an authorisation by the customer to the
               finance house for it to pay the full amount of
               the loan to the retailer and an agreement by
               the finance house to do so; and
     (c) as a result of a separate agreement between the
         retailer and the finance house (the existence and
         terms of which are not disclosed to the customer),           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
         the sum received by the retailer is a sum less than          PremieÁre Instance, LieÁge (Seventh Chamber), by judgment
         the full amount of the advertised price for the              of that court of 8 February 1999 in the case of IdeÂal
         goods?                                                                   Tourisme SA against the Belgian State
                                                                                (Case C-36/99)
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                                        (1999/C 100/17)
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                      PremieÁre Instance (Court of First Instance), LieÁge (Seventh
                                                                      Chamber) of 8 February 1999, received at the Court
                                                                      Registry on 10 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of IdeÂal Tourisme against the Belgian State on the
                                                                      following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Pinerolo (TO) by order of 13 January                 Does Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1), and in particular
1999 in the criminal proceedings against Manuele                      Article 12(3) and Article 28(3)(b) thereof, permit Member
Arduino, with the intervention of Diego Dessi, plaintiff in           States to introduce, to the detriment of motor-coach
the civil action, and the parties with civil liability,               passenger transport undertakings, discrimination whixh is
Giovanni Bertolotto and Compagnia Assicuratrice RAS                   counter to the principles of equal treatment and non-
           SpA, having its registered office in Milan                 discrimination contained in Community law?
                         (Case C-35/99)
                                                                      Can a VAT regime which favours a given sector of
                        (1999/C 100/16)                               economic activity, such as the one in issue in the present
                                                                      case, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92
                                                                      of the Treaty of Rome, even where it does not exclusively
                                                                      protect the interests of national industry?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 13 January 1999 from
the Pretura Circondariale di Pinerolo (TO) (District                  (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Magistrate's Court, Pinerolo (Turin)), which was received                 harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                          turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
at the Court Registry on 9 February 1999, for a
                                                                          uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against
Manuele Arduino, with the intervention of Diego Dessi,
plaintiff in the civil action, and the parties with civil


title: Case T-165/14: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014  — ANKO v Commission and REA

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/23

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — ANKO v Commission and REA
   (Case T-165/14) (1)

   2014/C 372/29
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case C-109/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 17 December 2003 in the case of Dr Karl Robert Kranemannagainst Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 17 December 2003 in the case of Dr Karl Robert Kranemann against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-109/04)
   (2004/C 106/45)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of 17 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on 2 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Karl Robert Kranemann against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:
   Is a national legal provision under which a trainee lawyer who completes part of his prescribed training at a place of his choosing in another Member State is entitled to reimbursement of travelling expenses only to the amount incurred for the domestic stretch of the journey compatible with Article 39 EC?


title: Action brought on 18 April 1997 by Ferriera Lamifer S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-122/97)

text:
No C 199/30            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 6 . 97
introduced by Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC, Euratom,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
ECSC ) No 840/95 creates an unjustifiable and unfair
difference    in   treatment    as  between   Presidents   and
Members of the Court of Auditors who are not yet in                  In 1994 the Italian Government notified the Commission
receipt of a pension and those who are, and also as
                                                                     of Law No 481 of 3 August 1994 and Decree No 683
between the pensioners themselves, according to the date
                                                                     of the Ministro dell'Industria , del Commercio e
taken into account for the purpose of determining when a
                                                                     dell'Artigianato ( Ministry of Industry, Commerce and
pension is acquired.
                                                                     Crafts ) of 12 October 1994, both of which were intended
                                                                     to facilitate the implementation of a plan for the
                                                                     restructuring of the Italian steel industry through aid for
                                                                     the closure of production units and for the re-training of
                                                                     personnel for work in economic sectors other than steel .
                                                                     By decision of 12 December 1994 the Commission
                                                                     approved those measures .
Action brought on 18 April 1997 by Ferriera Lamifer
S.p.A. against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                        ( Case T-122/97 )
                                                                     By the first contested decision, adopted on the basis of the
                                                                     Steel Aid Code (') and the above decision of 12 December
                          ( 97/C 199/77 )                            1994, the Commission declared that the aid planned in
                                                                     favour of, inter alia, the applicant undertaking, was
                                                                     incompatible with the common market, on the assumption
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     that aid for closures is to be granted solely to
                                                                     undertakings regularly manufacturing products for the
                                                                     steel market within the meaning of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the
 An action against the Commission of the European                    Code .
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 1997
 by Ferriera Lamifer S.p.A. , represented by Camine Punzi
 and Filippo Satta, of the Rome Bar, with an address for             The applicant, a company which possesses a hot-rolling
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk,              mill for the production of reinforcing rods for cement,
 13B Avenue Guillaume .                                              points out first of all that Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Code
                                                                      recognizes aid as compatible with the common market on
                                                                     condition that the undertakings in question, inter alia,
 The applicant claims that the Court should annul and                 ' have been regularly producing ECSC iron and steel
 amend :                                                              products up to the date of notification of the aid'. On that
                                                                      point, the applicant argues that the criterion for verifying
                                                                      the regularity of production, as further defined by the
 — Commission Decision No 4288 of 18 December 1996 ,                  Commission in its decision of 12 December 1994 , is
      notified to the applicant by post on 1 1 March 1997             invalid .
      by the Direzione Generale Produzione Industriale del
      Ministero dell'Industria della Repubblica Italiana
      ( General Industrial Production Directorate of the              In the first place, it is unreasonable to take 1993 — the
      Italian Ministry of Industry ), finding 'the State aid          year immediately preceding the adoption of national
      measures envisaged by Italy as part of the                      measures to encourage the closure of steel plants — as the
      restructuring of its private steel industry', in favour         sole reference period . Since the Code did not specify an
      inter alia of Ferriera Lamifer, incompatible with the           initial date for the reference period for calculating
      common market within the meaning of Article 4 ( c ) of          regularity of production, it seems totally at odds with the
      the ECSC Treaty and refusing to authorize the                    Code itself to restrict it so drastically. Secondly, it is
    , granting of such aid,                                           arbitrary and unfounded to take the MPP ( maximum
                                                                      possible production of an undertaking whose production
                                                                      timetable is based on the 24-hour day ) as a comparator
 — Commission Decision No 17924 of 12 December
                                                                       against which to measure actual production over the
      1994 in so far as, in identifying the criteria laid down         reference period. On that point the applicant points out
      by the second indent of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Commission            that the Code merely mentions ' regularity' of production,
      Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November 1991
                                                                       by which it obviously means production according to the
      establishing Community rules for aid to the steel                undertaking's past /practice, and certainly not by reference
      industry ('the Aid Code'), it provides that ' regular            to a factor such as the MPP which is inappropriate for
      production' is to be interpreted as the manufacture of           that purpose .
      steel products 'for the year 1 993 ... on average for at
      least one shift per day — that is, at least eight hours
      per day — five days per week ',
                                                                       Lastly, the applicant maintains that the statement of
                                                                       reasons is defective, in so far as the contested decision did
  — all other measures entailed by, connected with or                  not take into account its particular circumstances .
       howsoever consequential to, the above measures .                Specifically, the fixing of a single comparator for both
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/31
steelworks      and   rolling     mills     amounts      to   serious      1 590 000 000 ( ECU 118 000 000 ) to be compatible with
discrimination against the applicant, whose production                     the common market .
operations are based on a single working shift per day, by
contrast with steel mills which average three shifts daily.
Furthermore, the regularity of its production has been                     This action challenges the legal assessment from the
impaired by measures adopted by the local authorities                      standpoint of Article 92 et seq of the EC Treaty, and
prohibiting night-time production operations since, having                 challenges the Commission's decision inasmuch as it
regard to the cost of electricity, those hours are the most                confirms the payment of OS 1 273 000 000 ( ECU
economic .                                                                 95 000 000 ) already conditionally approved by the
                                                                           Commission and grants further aid of OS 317 000 000
(') Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November                    ( ECU 23 000 000 ). It also challenges the undertakings and
    1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel                 conditions on the part of the Austrian authorities laid
    industry ( OJ No L 362 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 57 ).                     down in Article 2 of the decision in that they are not
                                                                           proportionate to the amount of the aid granted and thus
                                                                           infringe the rules laid down by the Commission itself in its
                                                                           ' Community Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and
                                                                           Restructuring Firms in Difficulty' ( 1 ).
Action brought on 18 April 1997 by Salomon SA against                      In support of its action, the applicant maintains that there
        the Commission of the European Communities                         has been :
                        ( Case T-123/97 )
                          ( 97/C 199/78 )
                                                                           — a      manifest error of assessment inasmuch        as the
                                                                                Commission held the general conditions               for
                 (Language of the case: French)                                 authorizing payment of aid to have been satisfied,
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                           — a manifest error of assessment and infringement of
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                                Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty in that the aid
Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 1997
                                                                                granted by the Austrian Government:
by Salomon SA, whose registered office is at Pringy
( France ), represented by Loraine Donnedieu de Vabres and
Jean-Pierre Jouyet, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                      — are not capable of restoring the viability of HTM
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                                 within a reasonable time,
31 Grand-Rue .
                                                                               — are not capable of preventing               unjustified
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                         distortions of competition, and
— annul Commission Decision 97/8 1 /EC of 30 luly                              — are disproportionate in relation to the costs and
     1996 ,                                                                          advantages of the restructuring,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                           — a manifest error of assessment and infringement of
                                                                                Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                               — as regards the implementation of the restructuring
Austria Tabakwerke AG ('AT') is a public holding                                     plan and compliance with the conditions imposed,
company that is 100% owned by the Republic of Austria .
Head Tyrolia Mares ('HTM ') is an Austrian holding
company which groups together undertakings which                               — in that the Commission will not be in a position to
manufacture and market sports equipment, especially for                              exercise its supervision;
winter sports, tennis and diving.
                                                                           — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in that
The applicant is a direct competitor of HTM in the                              the Commission has not stated sufficient reasons for
markets for winter sports ( skis, bindings and ski boots ),                     its decision .
sports shoes and walking boots .
                                                                           (') OJ No C 368 , 23 . 12 . 1994 , p . 12 .
On 30 July 1996, the Commission declared the whole of
the aid already granted, or remaining to be granted, by AT
to HTM in the form of capital injections of OS


title: Case C-147/05: Action brought on 1 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/25

         Action brought on 1 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-147/05)
   (2005/C 143/37)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and S.P. Quintillan, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not taking all necessary legal and administrative measures to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, or by not notifying the Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive in national law expired on 22 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1


title: Case C-196/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy)) — Acoset SpA v Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov. Reg. ATO Idrico Ragusa, Comune di Comiso (RG), Comune di Modica (RG), Provincia Regionale di Ragusa, Comune di Acate (RG), Comune di Chiaramonte Gulfi (RG), Comune di Giarratana (RG), Comune di Ispica (RG), Comune di Monterosso Almo (RG), Comune di Pozzallo (RG), Comune di Ragusa, Comune di Vittoria (RG), Comune di Santa Croce Camerina (RG), Comune di Scicli (RG) (Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Award of public contracts — Award of water service to a semi-private company — Competitive procedure — Appointment of the private partner responsible for operating the service — Award made without regard to the rules governing the award of public contracts)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy)) — Acoset SpA v Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov. Reg. ATO Idrico Ragusa, Comune di Comiso (RG), Comune di Modica (RG), Provincia Regionale di Ragusa, Comune di Acate (RG), Comune di Chiaramonte Gulfi (RG), Comune di Giarratana (RG), Comune di Ispica (RG), Comune di Monterosso Almo (RG), Comune di Pozzallo (RG), Comune di Ragusa, Comune di Vittoria (RG), Comune di Santa Croce Camerina (RG), Comune di Scicli (RG)
   (Case C-196/08) (1)

   (Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - Award of public contracts - Award of water service to a semi-private company - Competitive procedure - Appointment of the private partner responsible for operating the service - Award made without regard to the rules governing the award of public contracts)
   2009/C 297/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Acoset SpA

      Defendants: Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov. Reg. ATO Idrico Ragusa, Comune di Comiso (RG), Comune di Modica (RG), Provincia Regionale di Ragusa, Comune di Acate (RG), Comune di Chiaramonte Gulfi (RG), Comune di Giarratana (RG), Comune di Ispica (RG), Comune di Monterosso Almo (RG), Comune di Pozzallo (RG), Comune di Ragusa, Comune di Vittoria (RG), Comune di Santa Croce Camerina (RG), Comune di Scicli (RG)

      Intervening party: Saceccav Depurazioni Sacede SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Award of water service to a semi-private company appointing, in accordance with a competitive procedure, a private partner to be responsible for operating the service — Award made without regard to the rules governing the award of public contracts

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC do not preclude the direct award of a public service which entails the prior execution of certain works, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to a semi-public company formed specifically for the purpose of providing that service and possessing a single corporate purpose, the private participant in the company being selected by means of a public and open procedure after verification of the financial, technical, operational and management requirements specific to the service to be performed and of the characteristics of the tender with regard to the service to be delivered, provided that the tendering procedure in question is consistent with the principles of free competition, transparency and equal treatment laid down by the EC Treaty with regard to concessions.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


21.10.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 302/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-231/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/52)                                                       (2000/C 302/56)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-231/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-495/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/53)                                                       (2000/C 302/57)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-34/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-495/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-432/97 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/54)                                                       (2000/C 302/58)
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 7 July 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the register of Case C-342/99 (reference for a preliminary          the removal from the register of Case C-432/97: Commission
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): New Yorker S.H.K.            of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Jeans GmbH v SIMPLEX-1000ST.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-271/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case   C-504/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/59)
                       (2000/C 302/55)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2000, the President of the Sixth Chamber
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-271/99:
the register of Case C-504/99 Commission of the European            Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Belgium.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.