title: Case T-19/00: Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Jean Demaeght, Théo Lippert, Ulrike Sinter, John Hambly and Kirsten Lammar against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 135/12              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
(2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)                  service stations along the border with Germany) are to be
    of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision                 treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the
    in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the                 meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the
    applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)                 applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for                     that any amounts which may or must be paid to the
    service stations along the border with Germany) are to be                 applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
    treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the                     correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
    meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the                  purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
    applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
    that any amounts which may or must be paid to the                     (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
    applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
    correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
    purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                          The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those
                                                                          in Case T-318/99.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those              (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
in Case T-318/99.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Jean Demaeght,
                                                                          Théo Lippert, Ulrike Sinter, John Hambly and Kirsten
                                                                          Lammar against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 19 January 2000 by Auto- en Carosse-
riebedrijf Ambting B.V. and Others against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities                                                    (Case T-19/00)
                         (Case T-15/00)                                                           (2000/C 135/24)
                        (2000/C 135/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 20 January 2000 by Jean De-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          maeght, residing in Luxembourg, Théo Lippert, residing in
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          Luxembourg, Ulrike Sinter, residing in Luxembourg, John
European Communities on 19 January 2000 by Auto- en
                                                                          Hambly, residing at Bembridge (United Kingdom) and Kirsten
Carosseriebedrijf Ambting B.V. and Others, established in
                                                                          Lammar, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël
Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the
                                                                          Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                          offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
(1) Declare the action to be admissible;
                                                                          — annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 18 November
(2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539           final] (1)        1998 not to take any steps to comply with the judgment
    of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision                 of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 1998 in
    in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the                 Case T-154/96;
    applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)
    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law relied on:        — Infringement of Article 7(1)
                                                                                (b) and (c) of Regulation
The applicants state that, in its judgment of 30 September                                                 No 40/94;
1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court of Justice,                                            — VITALITE has already been
the Court of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Court                                            accepted in 15 European
of Justice rejecting the applicants’ requests for the entry of                                             countries;
their names on the list of persons having manifested their                                              — the contested decision also
interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their                                              infringes first Council Direc-
service, as provided for by Council Regulation No 2688/95 of                                               tive     No. 89/104/EEC     of
17 November 1995 introducing special measures to terminate                                                 21 December       1988      to
the service of officials of the European Communities as a result                                           approximate the laws of the
of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.                                                           Member States relating to tra-
                                                                                de marks.
However, in the decision contested in the present case, the
administrative authority of the Court of Justice refused to take
any steps to comply with the said judgement, contrary to
Article 233 EC.
                                                                         Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Com-
                                                                         mittee of the European Central Bank, Johannes Priese-
                                                                         mann, Marc van de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli
Action brought on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider                                     against the European Central Bank
Corporation, a company registered in the USA, against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-27/00)
                              (OHIM)
                          (Case T-24/00)                                                         (2000/C 135/26)
                         (2000/C 135/25)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: English)                       An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Committee of the European
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde and
European Communities on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider                  Maria Concetta Cerafogli, represented by Norbert Pflüger,
Corporation, represented by Axel Kockläuner of Meissner,                 Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, with an address for
Bolte & Partner, Widenmayerstrasse 48, Munich, Germany.                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloys Schiltz, c/o
                                                                         Association Luxembourgeoise des Employées des Banque et
                                                                         d’Assurance a.s.b.l, 29, avenue Monterey.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Decision R 137/1999-2 of 6 December 1999 in so                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    far as the said decision dismissed the applicant’s appeal;
                                                                         — order the defendant to cease and desist from deriving the
— order the defendant to bear the costs.                                     rights or obligations of its staff from Administrative
                                                                             Circular 11/98 concerning ECB Internet usage policy,
                                                                             dated 12 November 1998 (the ‘Administrative Circular’);
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                         — order the defendant to withdraw the Administrative Circu-
Trade mark concerned:           VITALITE                                     lar and inform in writing the staff of the ECB about this
                                                                             withdrawal;
Product of service:             Goods in international classes 5,
                                29 and 32 of the Nice Classifi-          — order the defendant to cease and desist from adopting
                                cation                                       rules addressed to its staff as a collective and intended to
                                                                             govern the behaviour thereof without these rules being
Decision contested be-          Rejection of registration by the             consulted with the Staff Committee, as demanded by
fore the Board of Ap-           Examination Division                         Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of
peal:                                                                        the European Central Bank (‘CoE’);


title: Case C-255/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2011 — Nadine Büsch and Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2011 — Nadine Büsch and Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd
   (Case C-255/11)
   2011/C 226/28
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Geldern

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nadine Büsch and Björn Siever

      Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation (1) constitute a claim for damages which is subject to the limits of liability set out in the Montreal Convention, by virtue of the first sentence of Article 29 (2) thereof, where it is to be granted because of a long delay of a flight?

               2.

               Is the right to compensation under Article 7 of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation non-compensatory within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention in so far as it exceeds the damage incurred by the air passenger as a result of the long delay? Does this preclude a right to compensation entirely or does such a right arise in the event of delays only in the amount of the damage actually incurred?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Decision of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).


title: Case T-406/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014  — Promoinmo v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/52

         Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Promoinmo v Commission
   (Case T-406/14)
   2014/C 253/68
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Promoinmo, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 July 2004 in Case C-429/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France): Bacardi France SAS v Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) and Others (Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Directive 89/552/CEE — Television without frontiers — Television broadcasting — Advertising — National measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic drinks marketed in that Member State, in the case of indirect television advertising arising from the appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the transmission of sporting events — ‘Loi Evin’)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 13 July 2004
   in Case C-429/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France): Bacardi France SAS v Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) and Others (1)

   (Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) - Directive 89/552/CEE - Television without frontiers - Television broadcasting - Advertising - National measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic drinks marketed in that Member State, in the case of indirect television advertising arising from the appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the transmission of sporting events - ‘Loi Evin’)
   (2004/C 228/16)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-429/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de Cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Bacardi France SAS, formerly Bacardi-Martini SAS, and Télévision française 1 SA (TF1), Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon SA, Girosport SARL, on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/CEE of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23) and Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), R. Schintgen, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The first sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities does not preclude a Member State from prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State, in the case of indirect television advertising resulting from the appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the retransmission of bi-national sporting events taking place in the territory of other Member States.
               That kind of indirect television advertising is not to be classed as ‘television advertising’ within the meaning of Articles 1(b), 10 and 11 of the directive.

               2.

               Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) does not preclude a Member State from prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State, in the case of indirect television advertising resulting from the appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the retransmission of bi-national sporting events taking place in other Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-464/12 P (R): Order of the General Court of 3 December 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Order made at first instance in interim proceedings rejecting an application for suspension of operation of the contested decision — Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of sums which he claims were unjustly deducted from his allowance)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/25

         Order of the General Court of 3 December 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-464/12 P (R)) (1)

   (Appeal - Order made at first instance in interim proceedings rejecting an application for suspension of operation of the contested decision - Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of sums which he claims were unjustly deducted from his allowance)
   2013/C 38/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Re:

   Appeal seeking the setting aside of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case T-21/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Halcor Metal Works S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/36

         Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Halcor Metal Works S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-21/05)
   (2005/C 82/66)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Halcor Metal Works S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by I. S. Forrester, Barrister and A. P. Schulz and A. Komninos, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1(f) and 2(d) of the decision to the extent that a fine is imposed upon Halcor;

               —

               in the alternative, impose such lower amount as may appear appropriate to the Court in the exercise of its unlimited discretion pursuant to Article 229 EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the fine imposed on it by the Commission's Decision of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81(1) EC in Case Comp/E-1/38-069 finding three separate infringements in the copper plumbing tube sector.
   In support of it application, the applicant submits in the first place that its conduct did not deserve a fine. According to the applicant, its conduct did not involve behaviour worthy of a fine under Article 81 EC, in that it was subject to coercion from the other addressees of the decision and in that its participation in the cartel, as an export- and growth-oriented undertaking, was reluctant and passive.
   The applicant also submits that the starting point of its fine was manifestly erroneously set and infringes the principle of equal treatment. The applicant states that, whereas the decision accuses other addressees of engaging in three separate infringements, the applicant is accused of engaging in only one while the basic amount of the fine was calculated in the same manner for all addressees. The applicant also claims that it did not reinforce the arrangements and that the geographical scope of the infringement in the decision wrongly included Greece.
   The applicant furthermore submits that the increase for duration constitutes a manifest error of appreciation and an error in law.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the fine imposed on it was disproportionate by comparison to the fines imposed on the other addressees of the decision and in the light of the applicant's particular circumstances. The applicant refers in this respect to its voluntarily termination of its attendance at the meetings in 1999, two years before the Commission heard allegations about the cartel, to the short duration of its attendance at the meetings, to its passive presence and to the fact that it furnished the Commission with complete documentation on which the statement of objections and the decision were based.


title: Case C-478/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 June 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Merger or division of public limited liability companies — Requirement of an independent expert’s report — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 June 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-478/09) (1)

   (Merger or division of public limited liability companies - Requirement of an independent expert’s report - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 221/22
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. La Pergola and M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and V. Karra, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-361/03 P: Appeal brought on 21 August 2003 (facsimile received on 16 August 2003) by El Corte Inglés, SA against the order delivered on 8 May 2003 in Case T-63/03 El Corte Inglés SA v OHIM, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal being: Calzaturificio Yvonne S.r.l.

text:
C 239/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
        —     by failing to issue a provisional prohibition of                The Applicant claims that the Court should:
              fishing from fishing vessels flying the Danish flag or
              registered in Denmark when the quota allocated was              1)     declare that by failing to implement Council Directive 77/
              to be deemed to have been exhausted, and by failing                    799/EEC (1) of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual
              to inform the Commission when the halt to fishing                      assistance by the competent authorities of the Member
              was introduced,                                                        States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as
                                                                                amended, in the territory of Gibraltar, the United
        the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations                  Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
        both under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/                          Treaty;
        83 ( 1), and under Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of
        Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 (2);
                                                                              2)     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
2.      order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              Directive 77/799/EEC, as amended, was to be implemented by
Disregard of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/                 the Member States not later than 1 January 1981 as regards
83 and of Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation
                                                                              value added tax (by virtue of Directive 79/1070/EEC ( 2)) and
(EEC) No 2241/87.
                                                                              1 January 1993 as regards excise duties (by virtue of Directive
                                                                              92/12/EEC (3)).
The Danish Government has acknowledged that for certain
stocks the quotas allocated for the year 1998 were substantially
exceeded. The monitoring carried out of fishery activities and                Contrary to the view taken by the United Kingdom, the
the measures taken concerning the management and control of                   Commission maintains that Directive 77/799/EEC, as
those activities were in the Commission’s opinion inadequate.                 amended, applies to Gibraltar and that by failing to implement
                                                                              the directive in this territory the United Kingdom has failed to
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
The Danish authorities moreover in certain cases omitted to
bring criminal proceedings agains the persons responsible for
non-compliance with the rules on control and conservation.                    (1 ) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977, p. 15.
                                                                              (2 ) of 6 December 1979 amending Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ L 331,
                                                                                27.12.1979, p. 8).
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983                    (3 ) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
     establishing a Community system for the conservation and                      subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and
     management of fishery resources, OJ L 24 of 27.1.1983, p. 1.                  monitoring of such products (OJ L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
     lishing certain control measures for fishing activities, OJ L 207 of
     29.7.1987, p. 1.
                                                                              Appeal brought on 21 August 2003 (facsimile received on
Action brought on 7 August 2003 by the Commission of                          16 August 2003) by El Corte Inglés, SA against the order
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                           delivered on 8 May 2003 in Case T-63/03 El Corte Inglés
               of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                          SA v OHIM, the other party to the proceedings before
                                                                                the Board of Appeal being: Calzaturificio Yvonne S.r.l.
                           (Case C-349/03)
                                                                                (Case C-361/03 P)
                           (2003/C 239/08)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/09)
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 7 August 2003 by the                           An appeal against the order delivered on 8 May 2003 in Case
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                        T-63/03 El Corte Inglés SA v OHIM, the other party to the
R. Lyal, acting as agent, with an address for service in                      proceedings before the Board of Appeal being: Calzaturificio
Luxembourg.                                                                   Yvonne S.r.l., was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 ---pagebreak--- 4.10.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 239/7
European Communities on 21 August 2003 (facsimile received               5.    grant the abovementioned application transmitted by
on 16 August 2003) by El Corte Inglés, SA, represented by                      facsimile on 20 February 2003 as lodged in accordance
Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo.                                                         with the abovementioned requirements concerning noti-
                                                                               fication of documents and time-limits;
The appellant claims that the Court should:                              6.    place the case at the proper procedural stage or, if
                                                                               appropriate, grant the forms of order sought in the
1.   set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 8 May               abovementioned application of 20 February 2003.
     2003 which dismissed the action brought before it by the
     appellant on the ground that the application transmitted
     by facsimile on 5 February 2003 seeking the annulment               Pleas in law and main arguments
     of the decision of 12 November 2002 of the Fourth
     Board of Appeal of the OHIM in Case R 0189/2000-4                   —     Irregularities in the proceedings before the Court of First
     was inadmissible;                                                         Instance which are detrimental to the interests of the
                                                                               appellants.
2.   grant the abovementioned application transmitted by
     facsimile on 5 February 2003 and declare valid the steps            —     Failure to comply with Article 102(2) of the Rules of
     taken by the appellant in completing formalities following                Procedure of the Court of First Instance with regard to
     the aforementioned facsimile transmission of 5 February                   extension of time-limits on account of distance.
     2003;
                                                                         —     Disregard for the principle of effective protection of the
3.   place the case at the proper procedural stage or, if                      principles relating to the present case: rights of the
     appropriate, grant the forms of order sought in the                       defence; maintenance of procedural documents; and legal
     abovementioned application of 5 February 2003;                            certainty.
                                                                         —     Improper assessment of unforeseeable circumstances, as
In the alternative,                                                            regards the care and good faith demonstrated by the
                                                                               appellant, and of whether the matters set out in the
4.   set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 8 May               appeal could be put right.
     2003 dismissing the action brought by the appellant
     before it, on the ground that the application transmitted           —     Infringement of the rules concerning notification of
     by facsimile on 20 February 2003 seeking the annulment                    decisions of the OHIM (Rules 62(3) and 62(5) of Com-
     of the decision of 12 November 2002 of the Fourth                         mission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing
     Board of Appeal of the OHIM in Case R 0189/2000-4                         Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community
     was inadmissible;                                                         trade mark).


title: Case C-26/10P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2010 by Paul Inge Hansen against the judgment delivered on 17 November 2009 in Case T-295/09 Paul Inge Hansen v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/11

         Appeal brought on 18 January 2010 by Paul Inge Hansen against the judgment delivered on 17 November 2009 in Case T-295/09 Paul Inge Hansen v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-26/10P)
   ()
   2010/C 209/15
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Appellant: Paul Inge Hansen (represented by: P. Löfqvist, advokat, and C. von Quitzow, Juris doktor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   The Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the action by order of 6 May 2010.


title: Case T-64/09: Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Micro Shaping Ltd v OHIM (>packaging)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/23

         Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Micro Shaping Ltd v OHIM (>packaging)
   (Case T-64/09)
   2009/C 102/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Micro Shaping Ltd (Worthing, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

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

      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 December 2008 — Appeal R 1063/2008-1 — in relation to Community trade mark application No 006354311 ‘>packaging’;

               —

               Order the applicant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘>packaging’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 17 and 42 (Application No 6 354 311)

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) because the mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character and there is no need to retain availability, and of the right to be heard under Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94.

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


title: Action brought on 18 December 1995 by Telecom Italia Mobile SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-229/95)

text:
17. 2 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 46/ 17
Action brought on 18 December 1995 by Telecom Italia                  — order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
Mobile SpA against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                        ( Case T-229/95 )                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                           ( 96/C 46/32 )
                                                                      The applicant states that he has since 1 May 1994 been
                                                                      occupying the position of acting Head of Division in the
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Parliament's Directorate-General        for Information and
                                                                      Public Relations in Spain . On 9 March 1994 notice of
An action against the Commission of the European                      internal competition No A/88 was published with a view to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     filling that post; that notice of competition followed on from
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                   an initial procedure aimed at filling the post by way of
1995 by Telecom Italia SpA, whose registered office is at             promotion or transfer, which did not produce any valid
Turin (Italy ), represented by Gustavo Minervini, Antonio             applications . Having sat the competition, the applicant was
Tizzano, Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and                 entered in second place on the list of suitable candidates; he
Stefano D'Ercole and Andrea Guarino, of the Rome Bar,                 was awarded one mark less than the candidate placed first
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             on the list, by reason of the latter's knowledge of a third
of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert l er .                                 language . After the list was drawn up, the Director-General
                                                                      concerned interviewed the top three successful candidates
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          and proposed that the applicant be appointed . The
                                                                      applicant was informed, by letter of 2 March 1995 from the
— annul Commission Decision 95/489/EC of 4 October                    Secretary-General of the Parliament, that the appointing
    1995 concerning the conditions imposed on the second              authority had decided to appoint the person occupying first
    operator of GSM radiotelephony services in Italy ( OJ             place on the list.
    1995 L 280, p. 49 ),
                                                                      The applicant relies on seven pleas in opposition to that
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                              decision : ( 1 ) infringement of the procedure for filling
                                                                      vacancies, ( 2 ) breach of the principle of good management
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those            and sound administration, ( 3 ) breach of the terms of the
in Case T-215/95 Telecom Italia SpA v. Commission (').                notice of competition, ( 4 ) breach of the duty to provide a
                                                                      statement of reasons, ( 5 ) manifest error of assessment, ( 6 )
(') See page 15 of this Official Journal .                            breach of the principle of non-discrimination and ( 7 ) misuse
                                                                      of powers .
                                                                      The applicant maintains, first, that the decision was taken in
                                                                      contravention of the proposal made by the Director-General
                                                                      concerned . The practice generally and consistently followed
Action brought on 29 December 1995 by Fernando Carbajo                is that the appointing authority follows the
          Ferrero against the European Parliament                     Director-General's proposal and may only depart from it if
                        ( Case T-237/95 )                             it gives special reasons for so doing. The appointing
                                                                      authority gave no indication of the merits, qualifications
                           ( 96/C 46/33 )
                                                                      and/or experience of the successful candidate which it
                                                                      regarded as greater than those offered by the applicant; nor
                (Language of the case: French)                        did it state any of the factors which led it to depart from the
                                                                      proposal . Consequently, the procedure for filling vacancies
An action against the European Parliament was brought                 and the general duty to provide a statement of reasons, as
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    laid down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of officials,
Communities on 29 December 1995 by Fernando Carbajo                   were contravened .
Ferrero, residing in Madrid ( Spain ), represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar, with an            He further considers that although the notice of competition
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                   did not lay down any conditions as to the candidates'
Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.                                     qualifications and professional experience, the description
                                                                      of the nature of the duties involved and the principle of good
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          management and sound administration were and are such
                                                                      that the selection board was not validly in a position, first, to
— annul the decision of the European Parliament,                      admit to the tests in the competition a candidate lacking any
    contained in the letter of 2 March 1995 from the                  experience with regard to the post to be filled — as in the
    Secretary-General, Mr Vinci , not to appoint the                  case of the candidate who was ultimately appointed —, nor,
    applicant to the post of Head of Division in the Madrid           a fortiori, to enter his or her name in first place on the list of
    Information Office,                                               successfull candidates . The applicant further states that the
                                                                      omission of any condition as to qualifications and
— annul the decision of the European Parliament                       professional experience — despite the fact that such
     appointing another candidate to that post,                       conditions had appeared in the notice of vacancy preceding


title: Case C-326/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/113/EC — Social policy — Equal treatment between men and women — Access to and supply of goods and services — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-326/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/113/EC - Social policy - Equal treatment between men and women - Access to and supply of goods and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2011/C 139/06
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/42

         Designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures
   (2007/C 269/75)
   On 19 September 2007, the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge Cooke to replace the President of the Court for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 18 September 2007 to 30 September 2008.
   However, as regards applications for interim measures in respect of which a hearing was held and/or inquiry completed before 17 September 2007, the Judge designated to hear applications for interim measures during the period from 1 October 2006 to 17 September 2007 (OJ 2006 C 190, p. 15, and OJ 2007 C 155, p. 19) shall remain empowered to sign orders in those cases after 17 September 2007.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 25 June 1996 in Case C-101/96: criminal proceedings against Italia Testa (Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services with regard to national legislation on the management of copyright by a company governed by public law)

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 269/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
                         of 18 June 1996                                                      of 25 June 1996
in Case C-303/94 : European Parliament v. Council of the             in Case C-101 /96: criminal proceedings against Italia
                      European Union ( 1 )                                                           Testa ()
(Directive concerning the placing of plant protection                (Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free
products on the market — Prerogatives of the                         movement of goods and the freedom to provide services
                            Parliament)                               with regard to national legislation on the management of
                          ( 96/C 269/01 )                                  copyright by a company governed by public law)
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/02 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will he
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-303/94 : European Parliament ( Agent: Gregorio                      published in the European Court Reports)
 Garzón, assisted by Johann Schoo and Kieran Bradley )
 against Council of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon
                                                                      In Case C-101 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Torrent and Diego Canga Fano ) — application for the
 annulment of Council Directive 94/43/EC of 27 July 1994              of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma ,
 establishing Annex VI to Directive 91 /414/EEC concerning            Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli , for a preliminary ruling in the
 the placing of plant protection products on the market ( OJ          criminal proceedings before that court against Italia Testa
 No L 227 1994, p. 31 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.                on the compatibility of national legislation relating to the
 Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.              management of copyright with Article 30 of the EC Treaty ,
 Edward and J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) ( Presidents of          the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn , C. Gulmann ,          C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G.
 J. L. Murray, P. Jann , L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges ;           Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , J. C.
 Advocate-General : G. Tesauro, D. Louterman-Hubeau ,                 Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C.
 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment          Gulmann , J. L. Murray , P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L.
 on 18 June 1996 , in which it :                                      Sevón , Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ; R. Grass ,
                                                                      Registrar, made an order on 25 June 1996 , the operative
                                                                      part of which is as follows :
  1 . annuls Council Directive 94/43/EC of 27 July 1994
      establishing Annex VI to Directive 91 /414/EEC
      concerning the placing of plant protection products on          The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
      the market;                                                     Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di
                                                                      Tivoli, by order of 21 February 1996 is inadmissible.
 2 . orders the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M O J No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
  (') OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Case C-663/13: Action brought on 13 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/7

         Action brought on 13 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-663/13)
   2014/C 31/11
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, K. Herrmann and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 2(a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (n); Article 3(4)(a) and (b); Article 5; Article 13(1)(e) and the second and third subparagraphs of Article 13(6); Article 14(2), (3), (4) and (5); the second sentence of Article 16(1), the first subparagraph of Article 16(3), the second sentence of Article 16(4), Article 16(6), (7) and (8); Article 17(1)(c) in relation to biofuels, Article 17(2) in relation to bioliquids, Article 17(3)(b)(i) in relation to other Member States and third countries, Article 17(3)(a), Article 17(3)(b)(ii), Article 17(3)(c), Article 17(4)(a) to (c) and Article 17(8); Article 18(1) in relation to bioliquids; and Article 19(1) and (3) in respect of bioliquids of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1), and with Annexes II, III, IV and V to that directive, either in the whole of the federal territory or in some parts thereof, or by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that directive;

               —

               Order the Republic of Austria, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, on account of its failure to fulfil the obligation to notify implementing measures, to pay a penalty payment in the daily amount of EUR 40 512, payable to the own-resources account of the European Union, as from the date of the Court’s judgment declaring that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 5 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.


title: Case T-398/04: Action brought on 8 October 2004 by Henkel KGaA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/26

         Action brought on 8 October 2004 by Henkel KGaA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-398/04)
   (2005/C 19/57)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 2004 by Henkel KGaA, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision R 771/1999-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 August 2004 relating to Community trade mark application No 941 971 and served on the applicant on 9 August 2004;

               —

               order the Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark in the form of a dual-layered/dual-coloured (red/white) dishwasher tablet with an oval blue centre for goods in Classes 1 (chemicals for use in industry), 3 (soaps etc.) and 21 (sponges etc.) – Application No 941 971.

               Decision of the examiner:

               Refusal to register.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1). Misuse of powers.

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


title: Case C-260/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 25 May 2011 — Regina on the application of David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 25 May 2011 — Regina on the application of David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-260/11)
   2011/C 226/30
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos

      Defendants: Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Questions referred

               1.

               How should a national court approach the question of awards of costs against a member of the public who is an unsuccessful claimant in an environmental claim, having regard to the requirements of Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention, as implemented by article 10a 85/337/EEC (1) and article 15a 96/61/EEC (2) (‘the Directives’)?

               2.

               Should the question whether the cost of the litigation is or is not ‘prohibitively expensive’ within the meaning of Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention as implemented by the Directives be decided on an objective basis (by reference, for example, to the ability of an ‘ordinary’ member of the public to meet the potential liability for costs), or should it be decided on a subjective basis (by reference to the means of the particular claimant) or upon some combination of these two bases?

               3.

               Or is this entirely a matter for the national law of the Member State subject only to achieving the result laid down by the Directives, namely that the proceedings in question are not ‘prohibitively expensive’?

               4.

               In considering whether proceedings are, or are not, ‘prohibitively expensive’, is it relevant that the claimant has not in fact been deterred from bringing or continuing with the proceedings?

               5.

               Is a different approach to these issues permissible at the stage of (i) an appeal or (ii) a second appeal from that which requires to be taken at first instance?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985. OJ L 175, p. 40

      (2)  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996. OJ L 257, p. 26


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-508/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Palais am Stadtpark Hotelbetriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Scope of application — Limited partnership — Assignment of limited partner's share to a company with limited liability — Levy, after the assignment and the entry into force of the directive, of duty directly proportional to the amount of the contribution)

text:
13.7.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 169/5
            of directors which they regard as contrary to the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            guidelines for the country’s energy policy, including
            the Government’s objectives concerning the coun-                                       (Second Chamber)
            try’s energy supply;
                                                                                16 May 2002
—     the provisions of the Royal Decree of 16 June 1994
      vesting in the State a ‘golden share’ in Distrigaz (Moniteur        in Case C-508/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
      belge of 28 June 1994, p. 17347), which carries the                 from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Palais am Stadtpark
      following rights:                                                   Hotelbetriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG v Finanzlandes-
                                                                           direktion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (1)
      a)    advance notice of any transfer, use as security or            (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Scope of
            change in the company’s strategic assets must be              application — Limited partnership — Assignment of limited
            given to the Minister responsible, who shall be               partner’s share to a company with limited liability — Levy,
            entitled to oppose such operations if he considers            after the assignment and the entry into force of the directive,
            that they adversely affect the national interest in the       of duty directly proportional to the amount of the contri-
            energy field;                                                                                bution)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/07)
      b)    the Minister may appoint two representatives of the
            Federal Government to the board of directors of the                               (Language of the case: German)
            company. Those representatives may propose to the
            Minister the annulment of any decision of the board
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
            of directors or of the management committee which
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
            they regard as contrary to the guidelines for the
            country’s energy policy,
                                                                          In Case C-508/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
and by failing to lay down precise, objective and stable criteria         EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
for approval of, or opposition to, the operations referred to             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
above, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its               Palais am Stadtpark Hotelbetriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
obligations under Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                and Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und
amendment, Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now                   Burgenland, on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/
Article 56 EC), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                   335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
Iglesias, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and S. von         raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412)
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,                 as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris                 of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                 Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the             adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 June 2002, in which it:              founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the
                                                                          Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
                                                                          of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
                                                                          Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          The provisions of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay            concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the
      the costs;                                                          Act concerning the conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                          Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                          Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the
                                                                          European Union is founded must be interpreted as not precluding the
3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             levy of capital duty upon the conversion of a partnership into a capital
      Ireland to bear its own costs.                                      company within the meaning of that directive, where, before the entry
                                                                          into force of that directive, a duty such as that provided for in
                                                                          Paragraph 33, item 16(1), point 1(b), of the Gebührengesetz has
                                                                          already been levied on all the capital contributions made for the
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                 acquisition of shares in the partnership.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case C-297/02: Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/6                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.10.2002
2.    Is a statutory Scheme such as that regulating the export           Furthermore, the Italian Government argues that, even if the
      of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom to be                regulation were to be considered ‘substantive’, the fact that the
      considered incompatible with Articles 23, 25 and 28-29             Italian Government is not responsible for the withdrawal of
      EC in so far as it may affect trade between that island and        the amount of alcohol as a result of a judicial decision should
      the United Kingdom (together with Guernsey and the Isle            lead to the decision itself being considered a ‘case of force
      of Man) or may entail the imposition of charges arising            majeure’ which justifies replacing the product which was
      in connection with such trade?                                     withdrawn. In that case, precisely because the body responsible
                                                                         for payment is not at fault, there has been no failure to fulfil
                                                                         the obligation to assign the alcohol to the abovementioned
                                                                         stock nor, a fortiori, has their been any damage to the
                                                                         Community, whose sole interest is that Community stocks be
                                                                         maintained.
                                                                         Olive oil production aid
Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The flat-rate financial correction of 2 % of the expenditure
                         (Case C-297/02)                                 declared by Italy in respect of October 1997 to October 1998
                                                                         amounting in all to EUR 22 678 386,83 was applied as a
                                                                         result of the finding that the Italian authorities’ checks and
                                                                         inspections were inadequate. The finding was based on the
                         (2002/C 247/11)
                                                                         following three factors:
                                                                         —     belated notification of data relating to mill production by
                                                                               the paying agency AIMA (Azienda di Stato per gli
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      interventi nel mercato agricolo) to the inspection body
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   AGECONTROL;
Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Maurizio Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato.                                 —     lack of coordination of the various inspections and checks
                                                                               between the paying agency and the inspection body;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     inadequate analysis and assessment of the available
                                                                               information on risk factors.
—     annul decision C(2002) 2263 (1) def. of 28 July 2002 in
      so far as it provides with regard to Italy: — B.4.1. -ITALY
      — Investigation No 1999 (666) on alcohol correction to             By way of answer to the Commission’s criticisms, the Italian
      budget post 1622 in respect of 1998 financial year of              Government would submit the following:
      EUR — 4 085 724,85; — B.8.1. Olive oil production aid
      — Italy financial correction of EUR — 22 678 386,33
      for the financial years 1997, 1998 and 1999
                                                                         (a)   Coordination between AIMA and AGECONTROL
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The Agency has always sought to ask AIMA timeously
                                                                         and with the necessary precision for all the appropriate
The Commission takes the view that the proper application of             computerised data in order to allow it to carry out the checks
Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 (2) requires that wherever there             required by the work schedules for each financial year, issuing
is stock missing in Community stocks the budget post must                reminders for such information when it was late in providing
automatically be adjusted without inquiring into the reasons             it. Moreover, AIMA has for some years entered formal
for the shortfall, the Member State being held objectively liable.       memoranda of understanding with the Agency with the aim
According to the Italian Government, such an interpretation              of ensuring a regular and orderly exchange of computerised
must be rejected because it does not conform with legal                  information with AGECONTROL. The claim that there was no
reasoning, or with the letter and spirit of the provision.               coordination is therefore unfounded.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 247/7
(b)   Selection criteria for mill samples for inspection                 So far as concerns the selection criteria for identifying ‘non-
                                                                         compliant’ producers to be inspected on the spot, the applicant
                                                                         states that such criteria, agreed with the competent authority
                                                                         of the Italian State, are based essentially on examination of the
                                                                         agronomic characteristics of the olive groves arising from the
                                                                         register of olive cultivation available in Italy, which thus fulfils
So far as concerns selection criteria for mill samples for               the purpose for which such a register was provided for by
inspection, the applicant points out that the various parameters         Community legislation.
are laid down in the work schedules submitted beforehand for
approval by the Member State and the European Commission.
In particular, the Commission was in a position to know of               (1 ) Commission Decision 2002/523/EC of 28 June 2002 excluding
                                                                              from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the
those criteria and it is unacceptable that its services should                Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European
argue, in support of the claim that those criteria were not                   Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ 2002
transparent, that ‘even where the Commission’s services receive               L 170, p. 73.
and approve the schedules submitted by the inspection bodies,            (2 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 of 12 December 1990
that does not mean that they cannot criticise the management                  on the accounting rules for intervention measures involving the
system following an in-depth analysis on the spot’, inasmuch                  buying-in, storage and sale of agricultural products by intervention
as it is no more than a formal interpretation of the Com-                     agencies, OJ 1990 L 350, p. 43.
mission’s own powers and a breach of the obligation to                   (3 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 27/85 of 4 January 1985 laying
implement the aid provided for by under Community law. The                    down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC)
great importance attributed by the Commission to the allegedly                No 2262/84 laying down special measures in respect of olive oil,
                                                                              OJ 1985 L 4, p. 5.
inadequate analysis carried out by the Italian authorities of
‘non-compliant’ producers in order to identify those mills most
‘at risk’ which ought to be inspected is inconsistent with
institutional procedure as laid down, moreover, in Community
regulations (Regulation (EEC) No 27/85) ( 3), which enable the
Member States and the European Community to guide the
work of the inspection bodies by means of the approval or                Action brought on 23 August 2002 by the Commission
modification of the draft schedules in each financial year.              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
                                                                                (Case C-299/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/12)
(c)   Inspection of producers                                            An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 23 August 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by K.H.I. Simonsson and
                                                                         H.M.H. Speyaert, acting as Agents.
The Commission complains that very few inspections were                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
carried out at the premises of ‘non-compliant’ producers and
that such inspections were carried out excessively late and that         (1) declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force
the most ‘at risk’ cases were not checked. The number of                        Article 311 of the Wetboek van Koophandel (Commercial
inspections carried out in each financial year at the premises                  Code) and Article 8:169 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil
of various producers is set out in the draft work schedule                      Code), imposing requirements with regard to:
drawn up by the agency and approved by the Italian State and
by the European Commission. As regards the number of                            —    the nationality of the shareholders and directors of
inspections carried out, the agency did not fail to fulfil the                       any company owning a sea-going vessel which they
obligations accepted and approved by the national authorities                        wish to have entered in the Netherlands register; and
and the Commission’s inspectors. So far as concerns the
alleged delay in carrying out inspections of ‘non-compliant’                    —    the nationality and place of residence of the directors
producers, the applicant states that such inspections of olive                       of companies owning sea-going vessels entered in
producers and of surplus production cannot be carried out                            the Netherlands register and of the natural persons
until requests for aid are submitted by the producers them-                          responsible for the day-to-day management of the
selves and after publication in the Official Journal of yields in                    establishment from which, in the Netherlands, the
similar areas. That means that, at the earliest, there can be an                     shipping business necessary for entry of a sea-going
inspection in November or December of the financial year                             vessel in the Netherlands register is conducted,
following that in which aid to be checked is requested, that is
to say when there is already another olive crop and harvest                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
following the one which has given rise to the aid request.                      obligations under Articles 43 and 48 EC;


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  8 December 2005  in Case C-33/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Telecommunications — Directive 97/33/EC — Article 7(5) — Obligation to verify the compliance of cost accounting systems by a competent independent body and to publish a statement of compliance — Directive 98/10/EC — Article 18(1) and (2) — Failure to apply correctly the measures adopted as regards verification of the compliance of the cost accounting system by the national regulatory authority and the annual publication of a statement of compliance — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Pre-litigation procedure — Rights of the defence — Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — Transitional provisions — Member States to refrain, during the period laid down for transposition of a directive, from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive — Reference interconnection offers)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 8 December 2005
   in Case C-33/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Telecommunications - Directive 97/33/EC - Article 7(5) - Obligation to verify the compliance of cost accounting systems by a competent independent body and to publish a statement of compliance - Directive 98/10/EC - Article 18(1) and (2) - Failure to apply correctly the measures adopted as regards verification of the compliance of the cost accounting system by the national regulatory authority and the annual publication of a statement of compliance - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Pre-litigation procedure - Rights of the defence - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - Transitional provisions - Member States to refrain, during the period laid down for transposition of a directive, from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive - Reference interconnection offers)
   (2006/C 36/14)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-33/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils and M. Shotter) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents: M. Thill and S. Schreiner, assisted by A. Verheyden and F. Bimont, avocats,) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 January 2004 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka,, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to comply with the obligations to verify the compliance of cost accounting systems by a competent independent body and to publish a statement of compliance for the years 1998 and 1999, in accordance with Article 7(5) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) and by failing to apply correctly in practice the measures relating to the verification of the compliance of the cost accounting system by the national regulatory authority or another competent body, independent of the telecommunications organisation and approved by that regulatory authority, for the year 2000, in accordance with the provisions of Article 18(1) and (2) of Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment, as maintained by Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (‘the Framework Directive’), read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘the Universal Service Directive’), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 23.03.2004.


title: Joined Cases C-399/06 P and C-403/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — Faraj Hassan v Council of the European Union, European Commission (C-399/06 P), Chafiq Ayadi, Council of the European Union (C-403/06 P) (Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of the funds and economic resources of a person following his inclusion in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations — Sanctions Committee — Subsequent inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Fundamental rights — Right to respect for property, right to be heard and right to effective judicial review)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — Faraj Hassan v Council of the European Union, European Commission (C-399/06 P), Chafiq Ayadi, Council of the European Union (C-403/06 P)
   (Joined Cases C-399/06 P and C-403/06 P) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of the funds and economic resources of a person following his inclusion in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations - Sanctions Committee - Subsequent inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Fundamental rights - Right to respect for property, right to be heard and right to effective judicial review)
   2010/C 24/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Faraj Hassan (represented by E. Grieves, Barrister, H. Miller, Solicitor, J. Jones, Barrister, M. Arani, Solicitor) (C-399/06 P)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt, M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents), European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the appellant: French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by S. Cox, Barrister, H. Miller, Solicitor) (C-403/06 P)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by S. Marquardt, M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the Council of the European Union: French Republic

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgments of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case T-49/04 Hassan v Council and Commission and in Case T 403/06 Ayadi v Council by which the Court of First Instance dismissed applications seeking annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 of 20 November 2003 amending for the 25th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ 2003 L 303, p. 20).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 July 2006 in Case T 49/04 Hassan v Council and Commission and in Case T 253/02 Ayadi v Council;

               2.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/2008 of 18 January 2008, in so far as it concerns Mr Hassan;

               3.

               Annuls Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1210/2006 of 9 August 2006, in so far as it concerns Mr Ayadi;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Hassan and Mr Ayadi both at first instance and in these appeals;

               5.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs, both at first instance in the case concerning Mr Ayadi and in these appeals;

               6.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs;

               7.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs both at first instance and in the appeal in the case concerning Mr Hassan. Orders the European Commission, in the case concerning Mr Ayadi, to bear its own costs, in respect both of its intervention before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and of the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-649/13: Action brought on 4 December 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM (SmartTV Station)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/25

         Action brought on 4 December 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM (SmartTV Station)
   (Case T-649/13)
   2014/C 39/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by O. Spieker, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 128/2013-4) and alter the contested decision to the effect that the mark ‘SmartTV Station’ (Application No: 010595577) is allowed to proceed to registration in its entirety;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SmartTV Station’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 10595577

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-313/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Nicole Wippel v Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH & Co. KG (Directive 97/81/EC — Directive 76/207/EEC — Social policy — Equal treatment as between part-time and full-time workers — Equal treatment as between male and female workers — Working hours and organisation of working-time)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 October 2004
   in Case C-313/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Nicole Wippel v Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH & Co. KG (1)

   (Directive 97/81/EC - Directive 76/207/EEC - Social policy - Equal treatment as between part-time and full-time workers - Equal treatment as between male and female workers - Working hours and organisation of working-time)
   (2004/C 300/21)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-313/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by order of 8 August 2002, received at the Court on 5 September 2002, in the proceedings between Nicole Wippel and Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH & Co. KG, — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and K. Schiemann, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               A worker with a contract of employment, such as that in the main proceedings, under which hours of work and the organisation of working time are dependent upon the quantity of available work and are determined only on a case-by-case basis by agreement between the parties, comes within the scope of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
               Such workers also come within the scope of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC where:

                           —

                           they have a contract or employment relationship as defined by the law, collective agreement or practices in force in the Member State;

                           —

                           they are employees whose normal working hours, calculated on a weekly basis or on average over an employment period which may be up to a year, are less than those of a comparable full-time worker within the meaning of Clause 3(2) of that framework agreement, and

                           —

                           in regard to part-time workers working on a casual basis, the Member State has not excluded them, wholly or partly, from the benefit of the terms of that agreement.

               2.

               Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 97/81 and Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           they do not preclude a provision, such as Paragraph 3 of the Arbeitszeitgesetz (Law on working time), which lays down a basic maximum working time of 40 hours per week and eight hours per day, and which thus also regulates maximum working time and the organisation of working time in regard to both full-time and part-time workers;

                           —

                           in circumstances where all the contracts of employment of the other employees of an undertaking make provision for the length of weekly working time and for the organisation of working time, they do not preclude a contract of part-time employment of workers of the same undertaking, such as that in the main proceedings, under which the length of weekly working time and the organisation of working time are not fixed but are dependent on quantitative needs in terms of work to be performed determined on a case-by-case basis, such workers being entitled to accept or refuse that work.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.