title: Case T-393/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  3 May 2006  — Klaas v Parliament (Officials — Promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Carrying forward of promotion points to the new grade after promotion — Transitional measures — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2006 — Klaas v Parliament
   (Case T-393/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Carrying forward of promotion points to the new grade after promotion - Transitional measures - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2006/C 154/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Dirk Klaas (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: R. Moos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Knudsen and U. Rösslein, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for, first, annulment of the Parliament's decision of 12 February 2004 to cancel the two promotion points awarded to the applicant for the period preceding 1999 and also annulment of the Parliament's decision of 30 June 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint on that point and, second, an order of the Court that the two promotion points in question be carried forward to the following years
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case T-57/15: Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission
   (Case T-57/15)
   (2015/C 118/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision C(2013) 7285 final — Croatia — Alleged aid to Jadrolinija of 15 October 2014;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant;

               —

               refer the case back to the European Commission for further investigation and renewed decision; and

               —

               take such other or further actions as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing Article 107 TFEU in finding that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid because the wrong test was applied to establish whether State resources were involved.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing Article 107 TFEU in finding that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid due to the lack of State resources being involved.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of law by infringing the concept of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 106(1) TFEU by failure to consider Article 106(1) TFEU.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by infringing Article 10(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) in not sufficiently making use of investigation powers provided thereunder.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by failing to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by failing to state sufficient reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU with regard to the lack of State resources and the concept of Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 107(1) TFEU.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2002 in Case C-80/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Italian Leather SpA v WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. (Brussels Convention — Article 27(3) — Irreconcilability — Enforcement procedures in the State where enforcement is sought)

text:
C 180/2                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             27.7.2002
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 Abad): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
court between Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane,                         the measures necessary to transpose correctly the obligation
Rotterdam district and Sea-Land Service Inc. (C-430/99),                        arising from Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (C-431/99), on the interpretation of                         337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
Articles 92, 59 and 56 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  certain public and private projects on the environment
Articles 87 EC, 49 EC and 46 EC) and Council Regulation                         (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), in conjunction with Annex II thereto,
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the                               and by maintaining in force legislation which, in breach of
principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport                  those provisions, does not enable an assessment of the
between Member States and between Member States and third                       environmental effects to be carried out in the whole of the
countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     national territory in respect of certain classes of project listed
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                       in Annex II to that directive and, in a considerable part of that
mann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and                           territory, in respect of many other classes of project listed in
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                       the same annex, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                       obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it has ruled:                                composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
                                                                                J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
As regards situations falling within the scope of Council Regulation            hoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member
States and between Member States and third countries, that                      1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
regulation, in conjunction with Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty                    all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
(now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC), does not preclude                    to comply with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
a vessel traffic services system, such as the ‘verkeersbegeleidingssysteem’            337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
system at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the payment                    certain public and private projects on the environment, in
of a tariff by sea-going vessels longer than 41 metres which                           conjunction with Annex II thereto, the Kingdom of Spain has
participate in that system on a mandatory basis, while other vessels,                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
such as inland waterway vessels, are exempt from that tariff, in so far
as there is in fact a correlation between the amount of that tariff and         2.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the cost of the service from which those sea-going vessels benefit.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                             (Sixth Chamber)
                             of 13 June 2002                                                                   of 6 June 2002
in Case C-474/99: Commission of the European Communi-                           in Case C-80/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               the Bundesgerichtshof): Italian Leather SpA v WECO
                                                                                Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain                     (Brussels Convention — Article 27(3) — Irreconcilability —
public and private projects on the environment — Incomplete                     Enforcement procedures in the State where enforcement is
                               transposition)                                                                      sought)
                             (2002/C 180/03)                                                                  (2002/C 180/04)
                      (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                 (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-474/99, Commission of the European Communities                        In Case C-80/00: Reference to the Court, under the Protocol
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az                  of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 180/3
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Italian                                         (Sixth Chamber)
Leather SpA and WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., on the
interpretation of Title III, headed ‘Recognition and enforce-
ment’, of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September                                              of 13 June 2002
1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention
of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain                   in Case C-117/00: Commission of the European Communi-
and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended                                               ties v Ireland (1)
text — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and
by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989                      Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of
L 285, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,                          wild birds — Special protection areas)
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                                      (2002/C 180/05)
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2002, in
which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case C-117/00, Commission of the European Communities
1.    On a proper construction of Article 27(3) of the Convention of       (Agent: R. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan, assisted
      27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of             by C. Mac Eochaidh, BL): Application for a declaration that, by
      Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by             failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with
      the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the             Article 3 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on
      Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), in respect
      Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of             of the Red Grouse, and with the first sentence of Article 4(4)
      25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic            of that directive and Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/
      and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of             EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
      the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, a foreign          and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), in respect
      decision on interim measures ordering an obligor not to carry        of the Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex special protection area,
      out certain acts is irreconcilable with a decision on interim        Ireland has failed to comply with those directives and has
      measures refusing to grant such an order in a dispute between        failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court
      the same parties in the State where recognition is sought.           (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the
                                                                           Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges;
                                                                           P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
2.    Where a court of the State in which recognition is sought finds
      that a judgment of a court of another Contracting State is           1.    Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to
      irreconcilable with a judgment given by a court of the former              safeguard a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for the Red
      State in a dispute between the same parties, it is required to             Grouse and by failing to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the
      refuse to recognise the foreign judgment.                                  Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex special protection area, the
                                                                                deterioration of the habitats of the species for which the special
                                                                                protection area was designated, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC
                                                                                of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and
                                                                                Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
                                                                                on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
(1) OJ C 147 of 27.5.2000.                                                       flora;
                                                                           2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 1999 in Case C-103/98 P: Smanor SA and Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Refusal to bring Treaty infringement proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 204/21
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, G.F. Mancini                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
and R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 3 March 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs
    of these proceedings.                                                                          of 11 March 1999
(1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
                                                                           in Case C-249/98 P: Mario Costacurta v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Remuneration — Weightings — Breach of the
                                                                           principles of equal treatment and equivalence of purchasing
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          power — Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/41)
                         of 11 March 1999
in Case C-103/98 P: Smanor SA and Hubert Ségaud
and Monique Ségaud v Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)                                                      (Language of the case: French)
(Appeal — Refusal to bring Treaty infringement proceedings
                   — Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          (1999/C 204/40)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case C-249/98 P: appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                           of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 May 1998 in Case
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     T-177/96 Costacurta v Commission [1998] ECR-SC II-705,
                   in the European Court Reports)                          brought by Mario Costacurta, official of the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, rep-
In Case C-103/98 P: Smanor SA, a company incorporated                      resented by Albert Rodesch, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
under French law, established at Saint-Martin-d’Écublei                   address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers,
(France), Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud, residing at                    7-11 Route d’Esch, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
Saint-Martin-d’Écublei, represented by Laurence Roques, of the            the other party to the proceedings being Commission of
Val-de-Marne Bar, 7-9 Rue du Général de Larminat, Créteil                  the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
(France) — appeal against the order of the Court of First                  Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                   composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
16 February 1998 in Case T-182/97 Smanor and Others v                      J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,
Commission [1998] ECR II-271, seeking to have that order set               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
aside, the other party to the proceedings being the Commission             11 May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
of the European Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright
and Olivier Couvert-Castéra) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the                 1. The appeal is dismissed.
Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
11 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                  2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Smanor SA and Mr and Mrs Ségaud are to pay the costs.                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.


title: Case T-94/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Ntouvas v ECDC (Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Reports procedure — Career development report — 2010 appraisal procedure — Dismissal of the action at first instance — Time-limit for submission of the defence — Extension — Exceptional circumstances — Article 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Lawfulness of the appraisal procedure)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Ntouvas v ECDC
   (Case T-94/13) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Reports procedure - Career development report - 2010 appraisal procedure - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Time-limit for submission of the defence - Extension - Exceptional circumstances - Article 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Lawfulness of the appraisal procedure))
   (2016/C 078/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ioannis Ntouvas (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented initially by R. Trott, and subsequently by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2012 in Ntouvas v ECDC (F-107/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:182), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ioannis Ntouvas to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case T-41/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  25 November 2005  — Pérez-Díaz v Commission (Officials — Actions for annulment — Lis alibi pendens — Late submission of the prior complaint through official channels — Application for compensation closely linked to the claims for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2005 — Pérez-Díaz v Commission
   (Case T-41/04) (1)

   (Officials - Actions for annulment - Lis alibi pendens - Late submission of the prior complaint through official channels - Application for compensation closely linked to the claims for annulment - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 48/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Orlando Pérez-Díaz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Application for
   Firstly, annulment of the Commission decision of 21 January 2003 not to enter the applicant on the reserve list of temporary agents at the end of selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 and, secondly, compensation in respect of the damage allegedly resulting from that decision.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-604/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark 101 — Earlier Community word mark 501 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)
   (Case T-604/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark 101 - Earlier Community word mark 501 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 236/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Levi Strauss & Co. (New Castle, California, United States) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and J. Schmitt, and subsequently by: V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: L&O Hunting Group GmbH (Isny im Allgäu, Germany) (represented by: K. Kuck, K. Landes and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH;

               2.

               Orders OHIM and L&O Hunting Group GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Levi Strauss & Co.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht München by order of that court of 3 July 1997 in the case of Andrea Krüger v. Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg (Case C-281/97)

text:
C 295/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27. 9 . 97
order that the third party cease using the trademark for                  München ( Labour Court, Munich ) of 3 July 1997, which
goods which have been put on the market under that                        was received at the Court Registry on 1 August 1997, for
mark in a State which is not a Contracting State ?                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Andrea Krüger v.
                                                                          Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg on the following question :
                                                                          Is a rule of national law — in this case Paragraph 3n of
                                                                          the Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag ( federal employees'
                                                                          collective agreement, 'BAT') in conjunction with the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                 Zuwendungs-TV ( collective agreement on allowances ) of
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 22 July 1997 in the                  12 October 1993 — compatible with Directive 76/207/
case    of   Rose    Elektrotechnik GmbH &              Co  KG    v.      EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
                     Oberfinanzdirektion Köln                             treatment for men and women as regards access to
                         ( Case C-280/97 )                                employment, vocational training and promotion, and
                                                                          working conditions ('), and with Article 119 of the EC
                             ( 97/C 295/30 )                              Treaty, if it provides that workers who exercise an activity
                                                                          which is not subject to compulsory social insurance during
                                                                          child-care leave , by contrast with workers liable to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    compulsory social insurance, do not receive an annual
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate                     special allowance under the relevant collective agreement ?
of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf ( Finance Court,                          Is that rule compatible with the above provisions in
Düsseldorf) of 22 July 1997, which was received at the                    particular if workers who are on child-care leave but are
Court Registry on 1 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling                 not working nevertheless receive the special allowance
in the case of Rose Elektrotechnik GmbH & Co KG v.
                                                                          under the collective agreement in the first year ?
Oberfinanzdirektion Köln on the following questions :
                                                                          (') OJ L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
 1.  Is the Common Customs Tariff in the version in
     Annex I to Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/96
     of 9 September 1996 amending Annex I to Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
     Tariff (')   ( combined         nomenclature    1997 )  to   be
     interpreted as meaning that an article described as a                Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
     junction box and consisting of a rectangular container                  the European Communities against the French Republic
     with lid of coated die-cast aluminium ( aluminium/                                              ( Case C-282/97 )
     silicon alloy with aluminium content predominant by
     weight ) with four steel connecting bolts and four                                                 ( 97/C 295/32 )
     earthing bolts of copper-plated steel ( packed loose in
     the article and yet to be inserted into threaded holes
     provided for that purpose ) is to be classified under                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
     heading No 8538 ?                                                     the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, represented by Fernando
                                                                           Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service, and O. Couvert-
 2 . If the answer to Question 1 is negative : Is the
                                                                           Castera, a national civil servant on secondment to that
     Common Customs Tariff ( Combined Nomenclature
                                                                           service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      1997) to be interpreted as meaning that such an                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
     Article is to be classified, applying the first sentence of
                                                                           Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
      General Rule 2(a ) for the interpretation of the
      Combined Nomenclature, under heading No 8536 ?
                                                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims
 H OJ L 238 , 19 . 9 . 1996 , p. 1 .                                       that the Court should :
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt witin the period
                                                                                prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                92/73/EEC (') of 22 September 1992 widening the
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht                     scope of Directives 65/65/EEC (2 ) and 75/319/EEC ( 3 )
 München by order of that court of 3 July 1997 in the case                      on the approximation of provisions laid down by
       of Andrea Krüger v. Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg                           law, regulation or administrative action relating to
                           ( Case C-281/97)                                     medicinal products and laying down additional
                                                                                provisions on homeopathic medicinal products, the
                               ( 97/C 295/31 )                                  French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the EC Treaty and that Directive,
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                     — order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-216/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht für ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien by order of that Court of 30 September 2002 in the case of DLD Trading Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic of Austria

text:
C 251/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       18.10.2003
European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, M. Bavendamm                        member countries and aligning exemptions from tax and
and I. Ní Riagáin Düro) — the Court (First Chamber),                             from customs duty in the context of travel?
composed of M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July
                                                                          ( 1)  OJ L 350, p. 12.
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          ( 2)  OJ L 345, p. 9.
                                                                          ( 3)  OJ L 105, p. 1.
                                                                          ( 4)  OJ L 133, p. 6.
1.   The appeal is dismissed;
2.   Mr. Di Pietro is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.
                                                                          Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that
                                                                          Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between
                                                                          1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG, 3. Touwen
                                                                          & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf Atochem
                                                                          Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
                                                                          Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de
                                                                                toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
für ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien by order of that Court                                             (Case C-281/03)
of 30 September 2002 in the case of DLD Trading
Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic                                                 (2003/C 251/04)
                             of Austria
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (Case C-216/03)                                 European Communities by judgment of the College van
                                                                          Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
                          (2003/C 251/03)                                 and Industry) of 26 June 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                          on 30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                          between 1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    3. Touwen & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für                    Atochem Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna)               Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de toelating
of 30 September 2002, received at the Court Registry on                   van bestrijdingsmiddelen on the following question:
19 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of DLD
Trading Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic
of Austria on the following questions:                                    Does the Substances Directive permit a Member State to lay
                                                                          down additional conditions for the placing on the market and
                                                                          use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is
1.   Are Regulation (EC) No 3316/94 (1) and Regulation (EC)               included in Annex I to the Substances Directive?
     No 2744/981 (2) compatible with the provisions of
     Community law relating to exemptions from customs
     duties, in particular Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (3) and
     the principle of the Customs union?
2.   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
     Did the retroactive entry into force of Regulation (EC)              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
     No 2744/98 infringe the principles of legal certainty or             Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that
     the protection of legitimate expectations?                           Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between Arch
                                                                          Timber Protection BV and College voor de toelating
                                                                          van bestrijdingsmiddelen; party to these proceedings:
3.   Are Article 5(8) of Directive 69/169/EEC (4) and the                      Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal
     national provisions transposing it, namely Paragraph 3a
     of the Verbrauchssteuer-befreiungsverordnung (Regulation                                       (Case C-281/03)
     on exemptions from excise duties) and the Umsatzsteuer-
     Verordnung, (Turnover Tax Regulations) (BGBl II                                                (2003/C 251/05)
     No 326/1997), incompatible with the purposes of harmo-
     nising turnover tax and excise duty within the Member                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     States, liberalising and facilitating travel to and from non-        European Communities by judgment of the College van


title: Case T-555/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014  — Estonia v Commission

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/17

         Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Estonia v Commission
   (Case T-555/14)
   2014/C 372/22
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 14 May 2014 (C(2014)3271 final) on the suspension of interim payments within the framework of the operational programme of support for Estonia from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the 2007-2013 programme period;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied Articles 25(2) and 89 of Regulation No 1198/2006 (1) wrongly.
               The applicant claims that the interpretation the Commission gave to Article 25, according to which support for investments is justified only if the relevant technical indicators of a vessel are improved by means of them, so that the improvement goes beyond restoring the original condition of the vessel, does not correspond to the wording, meaning or objectives of that article. The wording of Article 25(2) leaves a broad discretion as to what sort of investments may be supported within the framework of the EFF. Since the applicant complied with the provisions of Article 25(2), the application of Article 89 and the suspension of interim payments for supporting the first priority axis of the operational programme are also inappropriate.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 88 of Regulation No 1198/2006.
               The applicant criticises the Commission for not taking a decision on suspension of payments within six months from the notification of interruption of interim payments. According to the applicant, the Commission thereby infringed Article 88 of Regulation No 1198/2006 and contradicted its own guidelines concerning the interruption, suspension and financial correction of interim payments.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration.
               The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration by adopting the contested decision, since (1) it did not assess carefully or take into account all the information provided by the applicant, (2) it did not check whether all the assumptions used in making its decision were correct, (3) it automatically treated all investments which were carried out for bringing amortised vessels into a better condition as routine maintenance, and (4) it wrongly assessed that those investments did not contribute to attaining the objectives laid down in Article 25(2).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
               The applicant claims that, regardless of the position which was clearly and precisely expressed in the Commission’s letter and thus gave rise to a legitimate expectation, according to which expenditure on renovating/repairing an engine may be covered by Article 25(2) of Regulation No 1198/2006 if the vessel’s fishing ability is not increased thereby, the Commission later decided that such expenditures does not contribute to improving the technical indicators of any vessel, but rather to restoring or preserving the original condition of fishing vessels, and are therefore ineligible for aid. The applicant claims that it was not aware of the latter approach; it could not be deduced from Article 25 of Regulation No 1198/2006 or from the Commission’s letter in reply to the corresponding question asked by the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty.
               The applicant considers that the circumstance that the Commission makes a final decision on suspension of an application for an interim payment after more than three years have passed from the interruption of the first application for an interim payment, thereby failing to comply with the six-month period laid down in Article 88(1) of Regulation No 1198/2006, clearly conflicts with the principle of legal certainty. Such conduct by the Commission could not in any way have been foreseen by the recipients of support from the EFF.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (OJ 2006 L 223, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-106/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)): The Queen, on the application of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), and SangStat UK Ltd, and Imtix-SangStat UK Ltd (Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation — Procedure relating to essentially similar products)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-106/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)): The Queen, on the application of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), and SangStat UK Ltd, and Imtix-SangStat UK Ltd (1)

   (Medicinal products - Marketing authorisation - Procedure relating to essentially similar products)
   (2004/C 118/13)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-106/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between The Queen on the application of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd andThe Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), and SangStat UK Ltd, and Imtix-SangStat UK Ltd — on the interpretation of Article 4.8(a) of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20), as amended by Council Directives 87/21/EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 15, p. 36), 89/341/EEC of 3 May 1989 (OJ 1989 L 142, p. 11) and 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 22) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Products cannot be regarded as essentially similar for the purposes of the application of Article 4.8(a)(i) or (iii) of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products, as amended by Council Directives 87/21/EEC of 22 December 1986, 89/341/EEC of 3 May 1989, and 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993, where they are not bioequivalent.

               2.

               For the purposes of the procedure laid down by Article 4.8(a)(i) and (iii) of Directive 65/65, as amended, in determining the pharmaceutical form of a medicinal product, account must be taken of the form in which it is presented and the form in which it is administered, including the physical form. In that context, medicinal products such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are presented in the form of a solution to be mixed in a drink for administration to the patient and which, after mixing, form, respectively, a macroemulsion, a microemulsion and a nanodispersion, are to be treated as having the same pharmaceutical form, provided that the differences in the form of administration are not significant in scientific terms.

               3.

               The proviso, that is, the hybrid abridged procedure laid down by the final subparagraph of Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65, as amended, applies to applications for marketing authorisation based on Article 4.8(a)(i) or (iii).
               An application for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product may be made under the proviso, that is, by the abridged hybrid procedure provided for in the final subparagraph of Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65, as amended, with reference to an authorised medicinal product provided that the medicinal product in respect of which marketing authorisation is sought is essentially similar to the authorised medicinal product, unless one or more of the differences set out in the proviso apply, as the case may be.

               4.

               In considering an application for marketing authorisation for a new product C under Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65, as amended, with reference to a product A authorised for more than six or 10 years, the competent authority of a Member State is entitled, with a view to granting marketing authorisation, to refer without the consent of the person responsible for marketing to data submitted in support of a product B which was authorised within the previous six or 10 years under the hybrid abridged procedure laid down by Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65, as amended, with reference to product A, where those data consist of clinical trials provided in order to demonstrate that product B, though suprabioavailable to product A when administered in the same dose, is safe.

               5.

               In considering two hybrid applications for marketing authorisation for products B and C brought under the final subparagraph of Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65, as amended, and referring to product A, the competent authority of a Member State does not infringe the principle of non-discrimination where, as a precondition for the grant of marketing authorisation, it requires full clinical data on the bioavailability of product B, but, having examined the data filed in support of product B, does not require the same data for product C.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 16.6.2001.


title: Case T-340/10: Action brought on 20 August 2010 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/48

      Action brought on 20 August 2010 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice
      (Case T-340/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/91)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Computer Task Group PSF SA Luxembourg (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, lawyer)

         Defendants: Court of Justice of the European Union

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  order the joining of the present case with the case pending before the Eighth Chamber of the General Court under Case T-170/10;

                  —

                  annul the decision the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010 to award the contract ‘AO 008/2009: 1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management’ to another tenderer;

                  —

                  declare the non-contractual liability of the European Union and order the Court of Justice to compensate the applicant for all the loss incurred on account of the contested decisions and appoint an expert to evaluate that loss;

                  —

                  order the Court of Justice to pay all the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and arguments put froward by the applicant are identical to those put forward in Case T-170/10 CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice (1) concerning the same tendering procedure.

         (1)  OJ 2010 C 161, p. 48.


title: Case C-419/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-419/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wolfgang Hofmann

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Question referred

   Are Article 2(1) and Article 11(4), second sentence, of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must refuse to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person outside a period during which that person was prohibited from applying for a new licence, in the case where that person’s driving licence had been withdrawn in the national territory of the first Member State and that person’s normal place of residence at the time of the issue of the driving licence was in the national territory of the issuing Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.


title: Action brought on 25 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-202/98)

text:
C 258/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
Action brought on 25 May 1998 by the Commission of                 those arrangements are to be phased out or adjusted in
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                accordance with the provisions of Article 4.
                         Luxembourg
                       (Case C-202/98)
                        (98/C 258/35)                              There is no period of grace for the requisite adjustment in
                                                                   respect of trade governed by the Code of Conduct for
                                                                   Liner Conferences, to which Article 4(1)(a) of the
                                                                   regulation applies. Where other carriage is concerned, the
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                deadline for adjustment laid down in Article 4(1)(b)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                expired on 1 January 1993. It is therefore irrelevant
Communities on 25 May 1998 by the Commission of the                whether it was governed by Article 4(1)(a) or (b), since all
European Communities, represented by Franck Benyon,                the time-limits for adjustment have long since expired.
Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service,           The Commission does not have any information enabling
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                   it to conclude that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has,
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,               to date, adjusted or phased out the arrangements in the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          agreements with Senegal and the Ivory Coast.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:                                             Article 3 of Regulation No 4055/86 concerns agreements
                                                                   concluded by Member States. Although Luxembourg
                                                                   states that the agreements have not been published, it does
Ð declare that, by entering into and maintaining in force          not appear to dispute the fact that they were validly
    the agreements containing cargo-sharing arrangements           concluded by Belgium on behalf of the UEBL pursuant to
    with Mali and Togo, and failing either to adjust the           Article 31(1) of the UEBL Treaty and that it therefore has
    agreements with Senegal and the Ivory Coast so as to           obligations towards third countries. Article 3 of the
    provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory access by        regulation also states in mandatory terms that the
    Community nationals to the cargo-shares due to                 arrangements are to be phased out or adjusted; it does not
    Luxembourg, or to determinate those agreements,                merely invite Member States to enter into negotiations to
    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under          that effect but requires them to achieve results.
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December
    1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide
    services to maritime transport between Member States
    and between Member States and third countries (1), in          Luxembourg's refusal to terminate the agreements on the
    particular Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof in the case of          ground that they contain other important provisions
    Senegal and the Ivory Coast, and Article 5 thereof in          consistent with Community law cannot be accepted. Such
    the case of Mali and Togo;                                     a position would effectively render the principle of the
                                                                   supremacy of Community law over national law
                                                                   redundant in the field of the provision of services. The
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                   termination of bilateral contracts which are contrary to
    costs.                                                         Community law does not in any way prevent Luxembourg
                                                                   from entering into new agreements concerning matters not
                                                                   covered by Community law.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The argument that the agreements are to a large extent
The existing agreements (UEBL Ð Ivory Coast, UEBL Ð
                                                                   inoperative as regards Luxembourg or that the
Senegal)
                                                                   involvement of any Luxembourg shipping companies has
                                                                   not been established is irrelevant both for Article 3 and
                                                                   for Article 5 of Regulation No 4055/86, which both refer
The agreements with Senegal and the Ivory Coast entered            to cargo-sharing arrangements contained in any
into force on 3 September 1984 and 25 October 1979,                agreements': even if the Luxembourg companies have not
that is to say before the entry into force of Regulation           availed themselves of those rights, what matters is the fact
No 4055/86. They are existing agreements subject to the            that they exist and that nationals of other Member States
provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of that regulation.                 may consequently not benefit from them.
Each of those agreements contains cargo-sharing
arrangements reserving 40 % of trade to Belgian or                 In those circumstances, the Commission considers that
Luxembourg shipping companies, to the exclusion of                 Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations
shipping companies from the other Member States of the             under Regulation No 4055/86 as regards existing
Community. According to Article 3 of the regulation,               agreements.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/23
The agreements concluded after the entry into force of             declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force
Regulation No 4055/86 (UEBL Ð Mali, UEBL Ð Togo)                   Article 2 of the Law of 9 July 1975 on the control of
                                                                   insurance undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree
                                                                   of 12 August 1994, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
The prohibition on cargo-sharing arrangements in any              fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of
future agreements' (Article 5 of the regulation) is intended       12 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
to preclude the substantive legal effects of such                  administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other
arrangements which undermine the principle of freedom              than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC
to provide services which applies to maritime transport by         and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (1) and
virtue of Regulation No 4055/86. In order to ensure the            under the EC Treaty.
effectiveness of the prohibition, Member States are
required not to include cargo-sharing arrangements when
negotiating new agreements with third countries.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The agreements with Mali and Togo contain cargo-sharing
arrangements which, in respect of future agreements, are
prohibited other than in the exceptional circumstances             In that it excludes from the scope of the national
specified in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 4055/86,                transposing legislation any insurance fund or undertaking
namely where, without such arrangements, Community                 covering the risk of accidents at work, even where such
liner shipping companies would not have an effective               undertakings carry on business at their own risk with a
opportunity to ply for trade to and from the country               view to profit, Article 2 of the Belgian Law of 9 July
concerned and in accordance with Article 6 of the                  1975, as amended by the Royal Decree of 12 August
regulation which requires a proposal from the                      1994, is inconsistent with Directive 92/49/EEC. The
Commission to the Council. Those circumstances do not              Commission does not contest the fact that the Belgian
exist, nor have the procedures been followed in the                system in respect of accidents at work falls within the
present case. The agreement in question reserves carriage          exception relating to social security. However, where,
between the parties to vessels flying their flag or operated       under the legislation of a Member State, operations
by national shipping companies'. It follows that vessels          forming part of the compulsory social security system may
operated by nationals of other Member States are                   be effected by insurance undertakings carrying on business
excluded from carriage.                                            at their own risk with a view to profit, as is the case in
                                                                   Belgium, they fall within the scope of Directive 92/49/
                                                                   EEC.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not provided the
necessary proof of the termination of those agreements.
                                                                   The only interpretation of Directive 92/49/EEC which
(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.                                  enables Article 2(2) to be reconciled with Article 55 is that
                                                                   which includes within the scope of the directive the
                                                                   provision of insurance cover against the risk of accidents
                                                                   at work where that activity is carried on by an insurance
                                                                   undertaking at its own risk with a view to profit.
Action brought on 2 June 1998 by the Commission of the
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium              The joint declaration of the Council and the Commission
                                                                   annexed to the Council minutes at the time of adoption of
                       (Case C-206/98)
                                                                   Directive 88/357/EEC relates to Article 12(2) of that
                        (98/C 258/36)                              directive, which was repealed by Article 37 of Directive
                                                                   92/49/EEC with effect from 1 July 1994; it cannot prevail
                                                                   over the clear provisions of a subsequent directive
                                                                   amending the directive forming the subject-matter of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               declaration.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 2 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting          Lastly, the Belgian Government wrongly relies on
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Article 55 of the EC Treaty. The legal basis of Directive
the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,              92/49 is Articles 57(2) and 66 of the EEC Treaty, and its
Kirchberg.                                                         object is the completion of the internal market in direct
                                                                   insurance other than life assurance from the point of view
                                                                   both of the right of establishment and of the freedom to
The Commission of the European Communities claims                  provide services. It follows that, as regards the areas
that the Court should:                                             harmonised by that directive (in particular, prudential and


title: Case T-121/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Versus Bank v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/18

         Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Versus Bank v Council
   (Case T-121/11)
   2011/C 130/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Versus Bank (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.


title: Case T-706/15: Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/73

         Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-706/15)
   (2016/C 038/98)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all the damage suffered by the applicant in an amount to be determined by the Court on an equitable basis;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, claiming that he has suffered damage for which the Council of the European Union is liable. The plea in law relied on is divided into three parts.

               —

               First part, alleging that the measures taken by the Council are unlawful in that, first, the restrictive measures are unjustified and disproportionate and, secondly, they infringe the applicant’s rights to good administration and reputation, and his right to property.

               —

               Second part, claiming that the applicant has suffered non-material damage because of his inclusion on the list of persons and entities covered by the sanctions against Syria.

               —

               Third part, claiming strict liability on the part of the European Union in so far as the measures adopted against the applicant abnormally restrict his fundamental rights.


title: Case T-244/12: Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Unister v OHIM (fluege.de)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/28

         Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Unister v OHIM (fluege.de)
   (Case T-244/12)
   2012/C 217/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2012 in Case R 2149/2011-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘fluege.de’ for goods in Classes 25, 28, 35, 39, 41 and 43

      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) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009


20 . 7 . 96              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 210/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     Removal from the register of Case C-174/94 ( 1 )
Verwaltungsgericht Kôln by order of that court of 8 May                                             ( 96/C 210/26 )
1996     in   the     case     of  Richard   Buchen        GmbH     v.
                       Bezirksregierung Köln
                           ( Case C-193/96 )                            By order of 19 March 1 996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                             ( 96/C 210/25 )
                                                                        from the register of Case C-l 74/94 : French Republic v.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                        United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Chamber
of the Verwaltungsgericht Kôln ( Administrative Court,
Cologne ) of 8 May 1996 , which was received at the Court               ( i ) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
Registry on 6 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Richard Buchen GmbH v . Bezirksregierung Kôln on the
following questions :
1 . Do shipments of waste destined for recovery, within
     Annex III to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of
     1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
     shipments of waste within, into and out of the European                    Removal from the register of Case C-99/95 (')
     Community ( 1 ), require the express or tacit consent of
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/27)
     the competent authority of dispatch, in accordance with
     Chapter B of the Regulation ?
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : if that         By order of 29 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
     authority raises objections, does it thereby at the same          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     time refuse consent or defer a decision ?                          from the register of Case C-99/95 : ( Reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ):
3 . If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative :           Saueressig GmbH & Co . v . Forbo-Krommenie BV.
     where the competent authority of destination has raised
     no objections or has consented to the shipment, may
                                                                        (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
     the waste be shipped after the period specified in
     Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 has passed,
     notwithstanding the objections raised by the competent
     authority of dispatch, if a legal remedy brought against
     the objections has suspensive effect under national
     law ?
4 . May the shipment of the waste referred to in Question 1
     be effected, despite the objections raised by the                         Removal from the register of Case C-3 50/95 (')
     competent authority of dispatch, if the competent                                              ( 96/C 210/28 )
     authority of destination has stamped the consignment
     note , even if the basis of the objections is that the waste
    will not be recovered but disposed of ( objection under             By order of 15 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
     the first or fifth indent of Article 7 ( 4 ) ( a ) of Regulation  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     ( EEC ) No 259/93 )?                                               from the register of Case C-350/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
(') OJ No L 30 , 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case C-236/00: Action brought on 13 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
12.8.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/21
      communication of a document would ‘be generally                    Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
      prejudicial to secrets protected by law’. That concept is          Office) of 1 June 2000, which was received at the Court
      not amongst the exhaustive list of exceptions set out in           Registry on 13 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
      Article 3(2) of Directive 90/313/EEC. It is not the same           of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against CSC
      thing as, and is no less extensive in the area it covers           Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum (Europe) Ltd), on
      than, the concept in the directive of ‘confidentiality of          the following questions:
      data’. Even though national authorities are required to
      interpret provisions of domestic law in such a way as to           How is the exemption provided by article 13B(d)(5) (1) in
      ensure compliance with Community law, the wording of               respect of ‘transactions in securities’ to be interpreted? In
      Law No 78-753 is not sufficient objectively to exclude             particular,
      the possibility of a refusal that is not justified under the
      directive, and, contrary to the obligations which follow           (1) does the term ‘transaction in securities’ apply only to a
      from Community law, the legal appearance creates a legal                 transaction in which the parties’ legal rights or obligations
      uncertainty which cannot be allowed.                                     in respect of the security are altered?
—     Failure to transpose the final paragraph of Article 3(2)           (2) does the term ‘transactions, including negotiation, in
      (partial communication of information): A doctrine set                   securities’ apply to a service of providing information to
      out by the (French) ‘Commission on Access to Admi-                       potential investors and receiving and processing applica-
      nistrative Documents’ is no substitute for the correct                   tions from investors for the issue of a security (but not
      transposition of a directive conferring rights on indivi-                including preparing and dispatching the document of
      duals.                                                                   title to the security), where that service is provided to a
                                                                               person who has legal rights or obligations under the
                                                                               security by a person who does not have any legal right or
—     Failure to transpose Article 3(3) (possibility of refusing a
                                                                               obligation under the security?
      manifestly unreasonable request, or one requiring the
      communication of unfinished or internal documents):
      Whilst it is true that Article 3(3) of the directive states        (1) Of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
      merely a possibility that is open to Member States and                 the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      not an obligation, it appears that that possibility of                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      rejecting requests is in fact used by the French administra-           basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
      tion when faced with certain requests for information,
      and that individuals are not in a position to discover with
      the required clarity what the limits of their right of access
      to information are, since the assessment of the exceptions
      is carried out only on a case by case basis by the
      administrative courts.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 3(4) (Possibility of no
                                                                                Luxembourg
      reasons being given for implied rejection decisions).
                                                                                (Case C-236/00)
( 1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
                                                                                (2000/C 233/40)
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice on 13 June 2000 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Kirchberg.
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 1 June 2000, in                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                      the Court should:
against CSC Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum
                           (Europe) Ltd)                                 —     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                               prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-
                                                                               nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with:
                         (Case C-235/00)
                                                                               —      Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998
                         (2000/C 233/39)                                              laying down certain measures for implementing
                                                                                Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the condi-
                                                                                tions and arrangements for approving and registe-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                ring certain establishments and intermediaries ope-
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                                 rating in the animal feed sector (1), and
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
      —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September               Pleas in law and main arguments
            1998 amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/
            EEC, 91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
            and repealing Directive 92/87/EEC (2),                     advanced in Case C-236/00 (2); the period for transposition
                                                                       expired on 30 June 1998.
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to comply
      with its obligations under Article 10 of Directive
      98/51/EC and Article 7 of Directive 98/67/EC;                    (1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.1997, p. 25.
                                                                       (2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph          Appeal brought on 14 June 2000 by Peter Reichert against
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC obliges        the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the Court of
the Member States to adopt the measures necessary in order             First Instance of the European Communities (single judge)
to transpose directives into their national legal order within         in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the European
the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit in                                           Parliament
question expired on 31 December 1998 but the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures.                                          (Case C-238/00 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/42)
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1998, p. 43.
(2) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000
                                                                       by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (single judge) in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the
                                                                       European Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Peter
                                                                       Reichert, represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, of
                                                                       Eicklöhken 19, D-45549 Sprockhövel (Germany), with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker,
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by the Commission of                    Braun & Wagner, P.O. Box 335, L-2013 Luxembourg.
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                          Luxembourg                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the
                        (Case C-237/00)                                      Court of First Instance in Case T-18/98;
                        (2000/C 233/41)                                —     itself determine the appellant’s application for the grant
                                                                             of the expatriation allowance, or alternatively refer the
                                                                             case back to the Court of First Instance for re-examination
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          and a fresh decision;
brought before the Court of Justice on 14 June 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 —     order the European Parliament, as respondent, to pay the
Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an               costs of the entire proceedings.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     The appellant’s employment as a correspondent in the
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Brussels press office of the VWD, which was taken into
the Court should:                                                            consideration in the contested judgment as a ground for
                                                                             the refusal of the expatriation allowance, lasted only
—     declare that, by failing to adopt or notify within the                 20 months and thus does not in any way constitute a
      prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and admi-                  substantial part of the 66-month period referred to in
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with                  Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of
      Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on                      officials.
      marine equipment (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 20       —     The Court of First Instance failed to give any consideration
      of that directive and under the provisions of the EC                   to the professional position occupied by the appellant
      Treaty;                                                                during the remaining period (namely, that of Brussels
                                                                             correspondent for the publication ‘Wirtschaftswoche’, the
—     order the Luxembourg Government to pay the costs.                      editorial headquarters of which is situated in Düsseldorf).


title: Case C-520/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2004, in the case of Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2004, in the case of Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen
   (Case C-520/04)
   (2005/C 57/32)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the right of a citizen of the Union to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States, or Article 39 on ensuring the freedom of movement of workers within the Community, to be interpreted as meaning that one or both of them preclude national legislation under which, in the case of a person who resides abroad and is a limited taxpayer in the Member State, the withholding tax charged on the taxpayer's pension based on a public-law service relationship paid from that Member State exceeds in certain cases the tax which the taxpayer would be charged as a person resident and hence a general taxpayer in the Member State?

               2.

               Is Council Directive 90/365/EEC on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that described in Question 1 above?

      (1)  OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 28.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2004 in Case T-307/01: Jean-Paul François v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Disciplinary regime — Relegation in step — Caretaking contract of the Commission's buildings — Reasonable time-limit — Criminal proceeding — Action for damages)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/37

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 June 2004
   in Case T-307/01: Jean-Paul François v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Disciplinary regime - Relegation in step - Caretaking contract of the Commission's buildings - Reasonable time-limit - Criminal proceeding - Action for damages)
   (2004/C 228/82)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-307/01: Jean-Paul François, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Wavre (Belgium), represented by A. Colson, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for, first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 April 2001 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction of relegation in step and, secondly, damages to compensate for the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; for the Registrar: I. Natsinas, Administrator, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 5 April 2001 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction of relegation in step;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant damages of EUR 8 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by him;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 2.3.2002.