title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-315/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Gesellschaft für Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) v Österreichische Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- AG (ÖSAG) (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Power of the review body to examine any infringement of its own motion — Directive 93/36/EEC — Procedures for the award of public supply contracts — Eligibility criteria — Award criteria)

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 184/9
On a proper construction of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council               1.    On a proper construction of the Sixth Council Directive (77/
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of                       388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                   of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the grant, by               system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, a
the owner of premises to an owner of a cigarette vending machine, of                business which purchases debts, assuming the risk of the
the right to install the machine, and to operate and maintain it in the             debtors' default, and which, in return, invoices its clients in
premises for a period of two years, in a place nominated by the owner               respect of commission pursues an economic activity for the
of the premises, in return for a percentage of the gross profits on the             purposes of Articles 2 and 4 of that directive, so that it has
sales of cigarettes and other tobacco goods in the premises, but with no            the status of taxable person and thus enjoys the right to deduct
rights of possession or control being granted to the owner of the                   tax under Article 17 thereof.
machine other than those expressly set out in the agreement between
the parties, does not amount to a letting of immovable property within
the meaning of that provision.                                                2.    An economic activity by which a business purchases debts,
                                                                                assuming the risk of the debtors' default, and, in return, invoices
                                                                                its clients in respect of commission, constitutes ‘debt collection
(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                                         and factoring’ within the meaning of the final clause of
                                                                                Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) and is
                                                                                therefore excluded from the exemption laid down by that
                                                                                provision.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 26 June 2003                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-305/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                 (Sixth Chamber)
the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Groß-Gerau v MKG-
                  Kraftfahrzeuge-Factory GmbH (1)
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
(Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Field of
application — Factoring — Factoring company purchasing                        in Case C-315/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      debts and assuming the risk of the debtors' default)                    the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Gesellschaft für Abfallent-
                                                                              sorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) v Österreichische Auto-
                                                                                bahnen- und Schnellstraßen- AG (ÖSAG) (1)
                             (2003/C 184/16)
                                                                              (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
                     (Language of the case: German)                           procedures relating to the award of public supply and public
                                                                              works contracts — Power of the review body to examine any
                                                                              infringement of its own motion — Directive 93/36/EEC —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     Procedures for the award of public supply contracts —
                       the European Court Reports)                                            Eligibility criteria — Award criteria)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/17)
In Case C-305/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Finanz-                                       (Language of the case: German)
amt Groß-Gerau and MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-Factory GmbH, on
the interpretation of certain provisions of the Sixth Council
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                        the European Court Reports)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, F. Macken and                          In Case C-315/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
a judgment on 26 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                            Gesellschaft für Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) and
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/10                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
Österreichische Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- AG (ÖSAG)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
21 December 1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to the application of                                            (Fifth Chamber)
review procedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordina-
tion of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ                                        of 12 June 2003
1992 L 209, p. 1), and Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June
1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                 in Case C-316/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     the      Unabhängiger         Verwaltungssenat           Wien):      Eva
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha              Glawischnig v Bundesminister für soziale Sicherheit und
Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,                                           Generationen (1)
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
19 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                             (Freedom of access to information — Information relating to
                                                                             the environment — Directive 90/313/EEC — Breaches of the
                                                                             rules on labelling of foodstuffs produced from genetically
                                                                                modified organisms)
1.    Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989, on the
      coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provi-                                   (2003/C 184/18)
      sions relating to the application of review procedures to the
      award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended
      by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public service                             (Language of the case: German)
      contracts, does not preclude that, in the context of an applica-
      tion brought by a tenderer seeking a declaration, for the purpose
      of subsequently obtaining damages, that the decision awarding a        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
      public supply contract was unlawful, the review body should, of                              the European Court Reports)
      its own motion, take account of the unlawfulness of a decision
      of the contracting authority other than the decision being
      contested by that tenderer. On the other hand, that directive
      precludes dismissal by the review body of the application
      brought by the tenderer on the ground that, as a result of the         In Case C-316/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      unlawfulness raised ex proprio motu, the award procedure               EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) for a
      was in any event tainted and the tenderer would none the               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      less have been harmed, even in the absence of the                      court between Eva Glawischnig and Bundesminister für soziale
      unlawfulness alleged by him.                                           Sicherheit und Generationen, on the interpretation of Article 2
                                                                             (a) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
                                                                             freedom of access to information on the environment (OJ
                                                                             1990 L 158, p. 56), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
                                                                             (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges;
                                                                             A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Admin-
2.    Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures            istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June
      for the award of public supply contracts prohibits a public            2003, in which it has ruled:
      contracting authority conducting public supply contract award
      procedures from taking account of the number of references
      relating to the products offered by tenderers to other clients not
                                                                             Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
      as proof of the tenderers' suitability but to satisfy an award
                                                                             freedom of access to information on the environment is to be
      criterion.
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that the name of the manufacturer and the
                                                                             product description of foodstuffs which have been the subject of
                                                                             administrative measures for controlling compliance with Council Regu-
                                                                             lation (EC) No 1139/98 of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory
                                                                             indication [in] the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from
                                                                             genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided
3.    Directive 93/36 precludes, in the context of a public supply           for in Directive 79/112/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation
      contract, that the requirement that there should be an opportu-        (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000, the number of administrative
      nity to inspect the subject of the invitation to tender within a       penalties imposed following those measures, and the producers and
      300 kilometre radius of the authority issuing the invitation to        products concerned by such penalties do not constitute information
      tender should serve as an award criterion.                             relating to the environment within the meaning of that provision.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                                  (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by orders of that court of 21 February and 15 May 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Mario Modesti and Lahlou Hassan (Cases C-191/96 and C-196/96)

text:
No C 247/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24 . 8 .
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Action brought on 24 May 1996 by the Commission of the                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                1 . declare that, in so far as it precludes, by regulation or
                         ( Case C- 179/96                                   administrative practice, by reason of nationality,
                                                                            Community workers, whether employees or
                            ( 96/C 247/05 )                                 self-employed , and the members of their families, on the
                                                                            one hand from having large-family status recognized for
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                         the purpose of the award of the relevant benefits
brought before the Court of Justice on 24 May 1996 by the                   provided for the members of large families, and, on the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                      other hand, from being awarded family supplements,
Dimitrios Gouloussis, acting as Agent, with an address for                  the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                   under Community law, in particular Articles 48
Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                      and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                            No 1612/68 ('), Article 7 of Regulation No 1251 /70 ( 2 ),
                                                                            Article 7 of Directive 75/34/EEC ( 3 ), and Article 3 of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                Regulation No 1408/71 ( 4 );
1 . declare that, by requiring general agents to have their            2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
    registered office ( in the case of legal persons ) or their
    residence ( in the case of natural persons ) in
    Luxembourg, and by requiring directors, general agents,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    inspectors, representatives and brokers, and any other
    person carrying on insurance operations, to reside in              Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 1612/68 , applying Article 48
    Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                      of the Treaty, provides that Community workers are to
    failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC        enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national
    Treaty;
                                                                       workers and , according to the settled case-law of the Court,
                                                                       that provision may not be interpreted restrictively . The
                                                                       Commission is of the opinion that the recognition of
2 . order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    costs .
                                                                       large-family status and the grant of the benefits and family
                                                                       supplements referred to above to large families constitute
                                                                       Community advantages within the meaning of that article .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Moreover, no rule of demographic policy can justify
                                                                       measures discriminating against Community nationals who
The restriction on freedom to provide insurance services               reside and work in Greece .
which is imposed by the legislation referred to on account of
the fact that a supplier of those services is established in a         (')  OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
Member State other than the one in which the service is                (2)  OJ , English Special Edition 1970 ( II ), p. 402 .
provided is manifestly contrary to Article 59 of the EC                (■') OJ No L 14 , 1975 ,  p . 10 .
Treaty, since it makes it impossible for nationals of Member           (4 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
States established in a Community country other than
Luxembourg to carry on their activities by providing
services in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                       Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by orders of that
                                                                       court of 21 February and 15 May 1996 in the criminal
                                                                       proceedings pending before that court against Mario
Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the                                     Modesti and Lahlou Hassan
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                   ( Cases C-191 /96 and C-196/96 )
                         ( Case C-185 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/07 )
                           ( 96/C 247/06 )
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             European Communities by orders of the Pretura
the Court of Justice on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of               Circondariale di Roma ( District Magistrates ' Court, Rome ),
the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia ,               Tivoli Division , of 21 February 1996 and 15 May 1996 ,
of the Commission 's Legal Service, with an address for                which were received at the Court Registry on 3 June and
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la              10 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner                   proceedings pending before that court against Mario
Centre , Kirchberg .                                                   Modesti and Lahlou Hassan .
 ---pagebreak---  24 . 8 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 247/5
 The questions referred by that court to the Court of Justice                a result of the scheme for the cessation of milk
 for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                   production provided for by Council Regulation
 C-101 /96 ( ).                                                              ( EEC ) No 1637/91 ('), a mechanism whereby, first,
                                                                             non-priority producers do not see the disappearance of
 (>) OJ No C 158 , 1996 , p . 3 .                                            the reduction in their reference quantities occurring
                                                                             during the eighth period but face a definitive further
                                                                             reduction in their reference quantities , and whereby,
                                                                             second , the redistribution to producers of the reference
                                                                             quantities freed is carried out on the basis of the
 Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Federal Republic                      cessation volume recorded in respect of their purchaser,
 of Germany against the Commission of the European                           the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                              Communities                                    under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1637/91 of 13 June
                          ( Case C-195/96 )                                  1991 fixing compensation with regard to the reference
                                                                             quantities referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )
                             ( 96/C 247/08 )
                                                                             No 804/68 ( 2 ) and compensation for the definitive
                                                                             discontinuation of milk production ( OJ No L 150 ,
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                             1991 , p. 30 ) and to observe the principle of
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  non-discrimination laid down in Article 40 ( 3 ) of the
 European Communities on 10 June 1996 by the Federal
                                                                             Treaty ;
Republic of Germany , represented by Ernst Roder,
Ministerialrat, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat, of the
Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs , D-53107 Bonn .                   2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 1 . annul Decision K(96 ) 1203 final of the Commission of
      13 March 1 996 concerning the grant of State aid by the           The action concerns the situation arising in particular from
      Freistaat Bayern ( Free State of Bavaria ) to the ECSC            an order of 6 April 1 992 relating to the distribution of the
      steel undertaking Neuc Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH ,                reference quantities freed pursuant to Decree No 91-835 of
      Sulzbach-Rosenberg;                                               30 August 1991 , published in the Official Journal of the
                                                                        French Republic of 3 May 1992 , p. 6123 .
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     ( As regards the discriminatory distribution of the national
                                                                        reserve quantities )
— failure to comply with essential procedural formalities
     ( obligation to provide a statement of reasons in                 The principle of non-discrimination ( Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC
     accordance with Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty ),                  Treaty ) prohibits any distribution of reference quantities
                                                                       whereby allocations to specified producers are made
— erroneous application of Articles 4 ( c ) and 83 of the              conditional on the volume of the quantities freed by other
     ECSC Treaty .                                                     producers supplying the same purchaser. This applies both
                                                                        in respect of the distribution of available funds arising from
The main arguments are the same as those in Case                       the discontinuance of activities and as regards funds
C-399/95 (').                                                           becoming available as a result of an across-the-board levy .
                                                                       Considerations connected with the need for decentralized
(') O J No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 5 .                               management, such as those cited by the French authorities ,
                                                                       cannot justify any failure to observe that principle .
                                                                       The Commission rejects the argument regarding the
Action brought on 11 June 1996 by the Commission of the                maintenance of a balance between different regions and
    European Communities against the French Republic                   different undertakings . Far from promoting a regional
                                                                       balance, the link established by the French rules between the
                         ( Case C-198/96 )                             level of the allocation of reference quantities within a
                            ( 96/C 247/09 )                            collection zone and the rate of discontinuation within that
                                                                       zone will result in the penalization of the most efficient
An action against the French Republic was brought before               regions .
the Court of Justice on 1 1 June 1 996 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis,
                                                                       ( As regards the failure to comply with Article 2 ( 4 ) ( a ) of
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                       Regulation No 1637/91 )
Kirchberg.
                                                                       The order of 6 April 1992 fails to observe the Member
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           States ' obligation to reconstitute the reference quantities
                                                                       reduced during the eighth period ( in France, 2,15% ).
1 . declare that, by setting up, in the context of the                 Although , according to Article 4 of that order, Onilait is to
     redistribution of the reference quantities freed as               reconstitute the reference quantities by making allocations


title: Case C-308/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 14 July 2006 — The Queen on the application of The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), The International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), The Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd's Register, The International Salvage Union v Secretary of State for Transport

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 14 July 2006 — The Queen on the application of The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), The International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), The Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd's Register, The International Salvage Union v Secretary of State for Transport
   (Case C-308/06)
   (2006/C 261/17)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The International Association of Independent Tanker (Intertanko), The International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), The Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd's Register, The International Salvage Union

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport
   Questions referred

               1.

               In relation to straits used for international navigation, the Exclusive Economic Zone or equivalent zone of a member state and the high seas, is article 5(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC (1) invalid insofar as it limits the exceptions in Annex I regulation 11(b) of MARPOL 73/78 and in Annex II regulation (6)(b) of MARPOL 73/78 to the owners, masters and crew?

               2.

               In relation to the territorial sea of a member state:

                           a.

                           Is article 4 of the Directive invalid insofar as it requires member states to treat serious negligence as a test of liability for discharge of polluting substances; and/or

                           b.

                           Is article 5(1) of the Directive invalid insofar as it excludes the application of the exceptions in Annex I regulation 11(b) of MARPOL 73/78 and in Annex II regulation (6)(b) of MARPOL 73/78?

               3.

               Does article 4 of the Directive, requiring member states to adopt national legislation which includes serious negligence as a standard of liability and which penalises discharges in territorial sea, breach the right of innocent passage recognised in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and if so, is article 4 invalid to that extent?

               4.

               Does the use of the phrase ‘serious negligence’ in article 4 of the Directive infringe the principle of legal certainty, and if so, is article 4 invalid to that extent?

      (1)  Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ L 255, p. 11)


title: Case C-452/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 August 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Krzystof Marek Poltorak

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 August 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Krzystof Marek Poltorak
   (Case C-452/16)
   (2016/C 383/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Krzystof Marek Poltorak

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the expressions ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) and ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, autonomous terms of EU law?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: what are the criteria for determining whether an authority of the issuing Member State is such a ‘judicial authority’ and whether the EAW issued by it is consequently such a ‘judicial decision’?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is the Swedish National Police Board covered by the term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and is the EAW issued by that authority consequently a ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the designation of a national police authority, such as the Swedish National Police Board, as the issuing judicial authority in conformity with EU law?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-339/07: Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Juwel Aquarium v OHIM — Potschak — Bavaria Aquaristik (Panorama)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/57

         Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Juwel Aquarium v OHIM — Potschak — Bavaria Aquaristik (Panorama)
   (Case T-339/07)
   (2007/C 269/103)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG (Rotenburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Jestaedt and G. Rother, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Christian Potschak — Bavaria Aquaristik
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2007 (R 214/2006-1);

               —

               Reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in respect of the Community trade mark ‘Panorama’ (Community trade mark 2 771 087);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Panorama’ for goods in Classes 11, 16 and 20 (Community trade mark 2 771 087).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Christian Potschak — Bavaria Aquaristik.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and in part of the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the Community trade mark ‘Panorama’ is not purely descriptive. In addition, pursuant to Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the indication ‘Panorama’ has not become customary and a mere generic term.

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


title: Case F-23/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Cerafogli v European Central Bank (ECB) (Civil service — ECB staff — Appointment of a member of staff on an acting basis — Notice of vacancy — Act adversely affecting an official — Placed on leave on account of disability — Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/60

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Cerafogli v European Central Bank (ECB)
   (Case F-23/09) (1)

   (Civil service - ECB staff - Appointment of a member of staff on an acting basis - Notice of vacancy - Act adversely affecting an official - Placed on leave on account of disability - Legal interest in bringing proceedings)
   2011/C 30/113
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Feyerbacher and N.Urban, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the ECB’s Board of Directors’ decision appointing an acting adviser to the Oversight Division and of vacancy notice ECB/074/08, as well as all decisions adopted on the basis of that vacancy notice. In addition, an application to order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 06.06.2009, p. 21.


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-13/15 — Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung (Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings of institution of place of stay or residence — Right to challenge those findings — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               5.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 2/4

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 16 December 2015
   in Case E-13/15
   Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung
   (Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings of institution of place of stay or residence — Right to challenge those findings — Principle of equal treatment)
   (2017/C 2/04)
   In Case E-13/15, Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 does not prevent a recipient or claimant of benefits from challenging the findings of an institution of the place of stay or residence made under the said provision in an administrative procedure before a debtor institution.


title: Case C-232/03: Action brought on 28 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
2.8.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/21
Pleas in law and new arguments                                          vehicle registered abroad. They require payment of the car tax
                                                                        chargeable in Finland before the vehicle may be used. Car tax
In general terms, for the provisions of an international treaty         is to be levied on vehicles which are used in traffic in Finland,
to be able to continue to have effect after its natural expiry a        even to a small extent, unless a specific exception is laid down
decision in that behalf must be taken in concertation by the            by law.
signatory States and only by them.
No joint position was adopted by the signatory States of the            Under the Finnish provisions, car tax is to be paid on a vehicle
ECSC Treaty, prior to the expiry thereof, with a view to                before it is used on Finnish territory. If the vehicle is never-
extending its validity in its entirety and to providing for a           theless used without paying tax in cases in which tax should
general transitional regime to ensure the continuance in effect         have been regarded as paid, the authorities levy tax on the
of all its provisions. Instead the signatory States allowed the         vehicle.
ECSC Treaty to be extinguished, merely regulating the transfer
of ECSC provisions to the EC regime in regard to certain
sectors. In particular, no joint provision was made in regard           The Finnish legislation, contrary to Article 39 EC, prevents the
to a transitional regime in competition matters under the ECSC          realisation of freedom of movement of workers, because
Treaty. In the case of investigations under way at the time of          employees living in Finland cannot use a car provided by their
expiry of the ECSC Treaty such expiry could not be claimed to           employer and registered in another Member State for their
be ‘non-retroactive’ since that would entail the continuance in         work in Finland, if tax is not paid on the car in Finland. As
effect of its provisions, no right, obligation or legal situation       a result of the Finnish legislation, employees resident in Finland
arising during the currency of the Treaty itself.                       cannot accept an offer of work from a neighbouring State of
                                                                        the European Union where the use in both countries of a car
From the applicant's point of view, absorption of the ECSC              provided by the employer is part of the work.
rules within the EC rules may occur only by way of an
instrument manifesting the common will in that regard of the
signatory states.                                                       Companies operating in another Member State cannot engage
                                                                        employees living in Finland because they cannot use a car
                                                                        registered in another country in Finland if Finnish tax has not
                                                                        been paid on the car. The practice discriminates in particular
                                                                        against cross-frontier workers living in Finland, who cannot
                                                                        use a car provided by the employer for daily work journeys
                                                                        between the home and the workplace. The use of a car
                                                                        provided by the employer is often a regular part of the
Action brought on 28 May 2003 by the Commission of                      remuneration. A Member State breaches the duty of coopera-
the European Communities against the Republic of                        tion under Article 10 EC if the national measures of the
                             Finland                                    Member State prevent freedom of movement in such a way
                                                                        that workers living in another Member State cannot pursue
                         (Case C-232/03)                                their occupation in the other Member State.
                         (2003/C 184/37)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Nacional by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
                                                                        case of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A.
1.    Declare that, by preventing cross-frontier workers from                          against INSALUD (now INGESA)
      benefiting from certain benefits provided to them by their
      employers on the sole ground that the workers in ques-
      tion live in the Republic of Finland, into which the                                       (Case C-234/03)
      vehicles owned by their employers have been imported,
      the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Articles 10 EC and 39 EC;                                                            (2003/C 184/38)
2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Audiencia Nacional
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (National High Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 2 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Provisions of Finnish legislation limit the possibility for a           of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A. against
person permanently resident in Finland to use in Finland a              INSALUD (now INGESA) on the following questions:


title: Case T-45/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — GEA Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Fines — Attribution of the infringement — Shareholding presumption — Duration and proof of the infringement — Limitation period — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Rights of the defence)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — GEA Group v Commission
   (Case T-45/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Fines - Attribution of the infringement - Shareholding presumption - Duration and proof of the infringement - Limitation period - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable time - Rights of the defence))
   (2015/C 302/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Kallmayer, I. du Mont, G. Schiffers and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C38.589 — Heat stabilisers), or, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders GEA Group AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-23/09: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2010 — CNOP and CCG v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Absence of legal personality of an addressee — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Concepts of undertaking and association of undertakings)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2010 — CNOP and CCG v Commission
   (Case T-23/09) (1)

   (Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Absence of legal personality of an addressee - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Concepts of undertaking and association of undertakings)
   2010/C 346/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Conseil national de l'Ordre des pharmaciens (CNOP) (Paris, France); and Conseil central de la section G de l'Ordre national des pharmaciens (CCG) (Paris) (represented initially by Y. R. Guillou, H. Speyart van Woerden, T. Verstraeten and C. van Sasse van Ysselt, and subsequently by Y. R.Guillou, L. Defalque and C. Robert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6494 of 29 October 2008 in Case COMP/39510 ordering the Ordre national des pharmaciens (ONP), the CNOP and the CCG to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Conseil national de l’Ordre des pharmaciens (CNOP) and the Conseil central de la section G de l’Ordre national des pharmaciens (CCG) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-251/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus (Public works contracts and supply contracts — Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Directive 93/38/EEC — Contract notice — Award criteria — Equal treatment of tenderers — Principle of transparency — Directive 92/13/EEC — Review procedure — Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-251/09) (1)

   (Public works contracts and supply contracts - Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Directive 93/38/EEC - Contract notice - Award criteria - Equal treatment of tenderers - Principle of transparency - Directive 92/13/EEC - Review procedure - Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer)
   2011/C 103/04
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra, I. Chatzigiannis and M. Patakia, agents, agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: K. Likourgos and A. Patanzi-Lamprou, agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4(2) and 31(1) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) — Infringement of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14) — Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer — Requirement to ensure that decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible — Principles of equal treatment and transparency

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case T-583/13: Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts v Commission

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/19

         Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts v Commission
   (Case T-583/13)
   2013/C 377/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts (Hampshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision contained in the letter of the European Commission dated 2 September 2013, confirmed by the letter dated 18 October 2013, refusing eligibility for a reward for a voluntary pediatric investigation plan under Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 (1); and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by fundamental errors in law in the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2006 L 378, p. 1)


title: Case C-108/12: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/9

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea
   (Case C-108/12) (1)

   2013/C 377/19
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 1999 in Case C-119/97 P: Union Française de l'Express (Ufex), DHL International and Service CRIE v Commission of the European Communities and May Courier (Appeal - Competition - Dismissal of an application for annulment - Commission's task under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty - Assessment of Community interest)

text:
C 136/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.5.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 2 March 1999
                                                                                of 4 March 1999
in Case C-179/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                in Case C-119/97 P: Union Française de l’Express (Ufex),
                                                                           DHL International and Service CRIE v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities and May Courier (1)
(Fisheries — Conservation of maritime resources — Inspec-                  (Appeal — Competition — Dismissal of an application for
tion of fishing vessels — Joint international inspection                   annulment — Commission’s task under Articles 85 and 86
programme adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries                        of the EC Treaty — Assessment of Community interest)
                           Organisation)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/03)
                          (1999/C 136/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-119/97 P, Union Française de l’Express (Ufex),
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     formerly Syndicat Français de L’Express International (SFEI),
                   in the European Court Reports)                          an association of undertakings governed by French law,
                                                                           established in Roissy-en-France (France), DHL International,
                                                                           a company incorporated under French law, established in
                                                                           Roissy-en-France, Service CRIE, a company incorporated under
In Case C-179/97: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Rosario Silva de                French law, established in Paris, represented by Eric Morgan de
Lapuerta) v Commission of the European Communities                         Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels
(Agents: Thomas van Rijn and Blanca Vil Costa) — application               and Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/97 of                   the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix — appeal
18 March 1997 modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2868/88                        against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
establishing detailed rules for the application of the Joint               European Communities (Third Chamber) of 15 January 1997
International Inspection Scheme adopted by the North-West                  in Case T-77/95 SFEI and Others v Commission 1997 ECR
Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (OJ L 77, 19.3.1997, p. 5), in             II-1, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
so far as it inserts Article 4(a)(6) in Commission Regulation              parties to the proceedings being Commission of the European
(EEC) No 2868/88 of 16 September 1988 (OJ L 257,                           Communities (Agents: Richard Lyal and Fabiola Mascardi,
17.9.1988, p. 20) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez               assisted by Jean-Yves Art) and May Courier, a company
Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann        incorporated under French law, established in Paris — the
(Rapporteur) Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,             Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and                  of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,
R. Schintgen, Judges, M. S. Alber, Advocate General; D.                    D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,              Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar: R. Grass,
has given a judgment on 2 March 1999 in which it:                          has given a judgment on 4 March 1999, in which it:
                                                                           1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
1. Dismisses the application;                                                   15 January 1997 in Case T-77/95 SFEI and Others v
                                                                                Commission;
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                           3. Reserves the costs.
( 1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.


title: Case T-279/13: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Ezz and Others v Counsel (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and against associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons targeted — Legal basis — Failure to fulfil the criteria for listing — Error of law — Error of fact — Right to property — Damage to reputation — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Amendment of the claims and pleas in law — Lis pendens — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/31

         Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Ezz and Others v Counsel
   (Case T-279/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt - Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and against associated persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons targeted - Legal basis - Failure to fulfil the criteria for listing - Error of law - Error of fact - Right to property - Damage to reputation - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Amendment of the claims and pleas in law - Lis pendens - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 118/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Giza) and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza) (represented by: J. Binns, Solicitor, J. Lewis, QC, B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, Barristers, S. Rowe and J.-F. Bellis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Counsel of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63), as amended by Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP of 21 March 2013 (OJ 2013 L 82, p. 54), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011‘renewed by decision of the Council notified to the applicants by letter dated 22 March 2013’ concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar shall bear their own costs and, in addition, pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-459/14: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/67

         Order of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)
   (Case T-459/14) (1)

   (2015/C 138/87)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-387/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Esaprojekt sp. z o.o. v Województwo Łódzkie, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency — Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators — Article 48(3) — Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities — Article 51 — Possibility to supplement the tender — Article 45(2)(g) — Exclusion from participation in a public contract for serious misconduct)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Esaprojekt sp. z o.o. v Województwo Łódzkie,
   (Case C-387/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency - Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators - Article 48(3) - Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities - Article 51 - Possibility to supplement the tender - Article 45(2)(g) - Exclusion from participation in a public contract for serious misconduct))
   (2017/C 213/03)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Esaprojekt sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Województwo Łódzkie

      Third party: Konsultant Komputer sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 51 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding an economic operator from submitting to the contracting authority, in order to prove that it satisfies the conditions for participating in a public tender procedure, documents which were not included in its initial bid, such as a contract performed by another entity and the undertaking of the latter to place at the disposal of that operator the capacities and resources necessary for the performance of the contract concerned after the expiry of the time limit laid down for submitting tenders for a public contract.

               2.

               Article 44 of Directive 2004/18, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow an economic operator to rely on the capacities of another entity, within the meaning of Article 48(3) of that directive, by combining the knowledge and experience of two entities which, individually, do not have the capacities required for the performance of a particular contract, where the contracting authority considers that the contract concerned cannot be divided, in that it must be performed by a single operator, and that such exclusion of the possibility to rely on the experience of several economic operators is related and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract which must be performed by a single operator.

               3.

               Article 44 of Directive 2004/18, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow an economic operator, which has individually participated in an award procedure for a public contract, to rely on the experience of a group of undertakings of which it was a member, in connection with another public contract, if it has not actually and directly participated in the performance of the latter.

               4.

               Article 45(2)(g) of Directive 2004/18, which allows the exclusion of an economic operator from participation in a public contract, in particular if it is guilty of ‘serious misrepresentation’ for making false declarations when submitting the information requested by the contracting authority, must be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied where the operator concerned is guilty of a certain degree of negligence, that is to say negligence of a nature which may have a decisive effect on decisions concerning exclusion, selection or award of a public contract, irrespective of whether there is a finding of wilful misconduct on the part of that operator.

               5.

               Article 44 of Directive 2004/18, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it allows an economic operator to rely on experience derived from two or more contracts treated as a single contract, unless the contracting authority has excluded such a possibility pursuant to requirements which are related and proportionate to the subject matter and purpose of the public contract concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Joined Cases C-395/08 and C-396/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy)) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno, Massimo Pettini (C-395/08), Daniela Lotti, Clara Matteucci (C-396/08) (Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers — Calculation of the period of service required to obtain a retirement pension — Periods not worked disregarded — Discrimination)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy)) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno, Massimo Pettini (C-395/08), Daniela Lotti, Clara Matteucci (C-396/08)
   (Joined Cases C-395/08 and C-396/08) (1)

   (Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers - Calculation of the period of service required to obtain a retirement pension - Periods not worked disregarded - Discrimination)
   2010/C 274/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

      Defendants: Tiziana Bruno, Massimo Pettini (C-395/08), Daniela Lotti, Clara Matteucci (C-396/08)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) — Part-time workers working some months of the year and resting in the other months — Exclusion of periods not worked in the calculation of pension rights

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               With regard to retirement pensions, Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for vertical-cyclical part-time workers, disregards periods not worked in calculating the period of service required to qualify for such a pension, unless such a difference in treatment is justified on objective grounds.

               2.

               If the referring court reached the conclusion that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement, Clauses 1 and 5(1) of the agreement would have to be interpreted as also precluding such legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-643/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
   (Case T-643/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2016/C 232/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2014 (Case R 1899/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Action brought on 5 July 1995 by Jean-Louis Delvaux against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-142/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 248/ 15
   Action brought on 5 July 1995 by Jean-Louis Delvaux                Lastly, he considers that the promotion procedure
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 established by the Commission in the Translation Service is
                        ( Case T-142/95 )                             contrary to Articles 5 ( 3 ) and 27 of the Staff Regulations, in
                                                                      so far as, first, it does not secure for the institution the
                          ( 95/C 248/33 )
                                                                      services of officials of the highest standard of ability,
                                                                      efficiency and integrity, and, secondly, it does not guarantee
                                                                      identical conditions of service career .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      As regards the claim for damages, the applicant states that
An action against the Commission of the European                      the irregularity of the promotion procedure for 1994 caused
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                    his unjustified exclusion from the list of officials considered
Instance on 5 July 1995 by Jean-Louis Delvaux, resident in            the most deserving of promotion and also, possibly, from
Rhode-St. Genese ( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,           the list of officials promoted; he maintains that he has
 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  suffered ascertainable damage linked to the loss of a chance
 Luxembourg c/o Ann Branch, 39 , Avenue Victor Hugo .                 of promotion in 1994, which could in particular have led to
                                                                      a higher salary, the right to a higher pension and the right to
                                                                      apply for A 3 posts .
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul the Commission's decision, which appeared in
      Informations administratives No 858 of 2 September
      1994 , not to include the applicant's name on the list of
      officials considered the most deserving of promotion to
      Grade LA 4 in 1994,
                                                                      Action brought on 7 July 1995 by Christos Michael against
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities
 — annul the Commission's decision, which appeared in
                                                                                ( Case T-144/95 )
      Informations administratives No 859 of 8 September
      1994, not to include the applicant's name on the list of                                  ( 95/C 248/34 )
      officials considered the most deserving of promotion to
      Grade LA 4 in 1994,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 — if necessary, annul the express decision of rejection
      adopted by the Commission on 3 April 1995 in reply to            An action against the Commission of the European
      the applicant's complaint;                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance on 7 July 1995 by Christos Michael, resident in
 — order the defendant to pay a lump sum of Bfrs 100 000               Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
      as compensation for the irregularity of the promotion            with an adress for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
      procedure which caused harm to the applicant,                    of Christian Kremer, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
 — order the defendant to pay all the costs .                          The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the implied decision, considered to have been
  Fleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      taken on 7 April 1995 , rejecting the complaint made on
                                                                           7 December 1994 by the applicant to the appointing
  The applicant relies, first, on breach of Article 46 of the Staff        authority challenging the decision on promotions to
  Regulations of Officials, claiming that the appointing                   Grade A 4 for 1994 ( decision published in Informations
  authority did not carry out a comparative examination of                 administratives of 8 September 1994 );
  the merits and staff reports of all promotable officials and
' also that it did not take into account all the applicant's           — oder the defendant to pay the costs .
  merits, in particular those acquired outside his linguistic
  unit . In addition he maintains that in the course of the
  promotion procedure he was the subject of criticism , in              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  conditions contrary to Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, to
  which he could not respond and which played a determinant
                                                                        The applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
  role in his being excluded from the list of officials proposed        non-discrimination and of Article 45 ( 1 ) of the Staff
  for promotion.
                                                                        Regulations , as well as of the implementing provisions
                                                                        contained in the Commission's Decision of 21 December
  The applicant points out, furthermore, that the contested             1970 , amended by Decision of 14 July 1971 , inasmuch as
   decisions are vitiated by the complete absence of a statement        the appointing authority did not undertake a 'consideration
   of the grounds on which they were based, in breach of the            of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for
   second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations .            promotion and of the reports on them'.


title: Case T-178/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  23 November 2005  — United Kingdom v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Proposed amendment to national allocation plan — Refusal by the Commission — Action for annulment)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/14

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2005 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-178/05) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Proposed amendment to national allocation plan - Refusal by the Commission - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 22/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially, C. Jackson, Agent, M. Hoskins, barrister, then R. Caudwell, Agent, and M. Hoskins)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and X. Lewis, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 1081 final of 12 April 2005 concerning the proposed amendment to the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 1081 final of 12 April 2005 concerning the proposed amendment to the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

               2)

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case C-537/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 (Madrid) lodged on 3 December 2007 — Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo SA

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 (Madrid) lodged on 3 December 2007 — Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo SA
   (Case C-537/07)
   (2008/C 64/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Social No 30, Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho

      Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo SA
   Questions referred

               1.

               Bearing in mind that the granting of parental leave must be a measure intended to promote equality, in the manner and to the extent freely fixed each Member State within the minimum limits imposed by Directive 1996/34/EC (1), is it possible that the enjoyment of that period of parental leave, in the case of a reduction in the working day and in salary by reason of taking care of children, should affect rights in the process of being acquired by the worker, male or female, taking such parental leave and may individuals rely before the public institutions of a State on the principle of the protection of rights acquired or in the process of being acquired?

               2.

               In particular, does the expression ‘rights acquired or in the process of being acquired’ in Clause 2(6) of the framework agreement on parental leave … include only rights related to working conditions and affect only the contractual relationship with the employer or, on the contrary, does it also affect the maintenance of rights acquired or in the process of being acquired in matters of social security, and is the requirement for ‘continuity of the entitlements to social security cover under the different schemes’ in Clause 2(8) of the framework agreement on parental leave … satisfied by the formulation under consideration and applied by the national authorities and, if applicable, is the right to continuity of entitlements to social security cover sufficiently certain and precise to be relied upon before the public authorities of a Member State?

               3.

               Are the provisions of Community law compatible with national legislation which, during the period of reduction in the working day by reason of parental leave, reduces the amount of invalidity pension to be paid in relation to what it would have been before that leave and reduces the accrual and consolidation of future benefits in proportion to the reduction in working hours and in salary?

               4.

               Given the duty of the national courts to interpret national law in the light of the obligations imposed by the Directive, in order to enable the objectives of the Community legislation to be achieved to the greatest possible extent, must that requirement apply equally to the continuity of social security entitlements during the period of parental leave and, specifically, in the circumstances of the case to a form of part-time leave or reduction in the working day such as was used on this occasion?

               5.

               In the specific circumstances of the case, does the reduction in the grant and accrual of social security entitlements during the period of parental leave constitute direct or indirect discrimination contrary to the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC (2) of 19 December 1978 on the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) and is it contrary to the requirements of equality and non-discrimination between men and women, in accordance with the tradition common to all the Member States, to the extent that this principle must apply not only to conditions of employment but also to the public activity of social protection of workers?

      (1)  Council Directive 96/34 EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4).

      (2)  OJ 1979, L 6, p. 24; EE 05/02, p. 174.


title: Case C-100/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/14/EC — Detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/16

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-100/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/14/EC - Detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 282/31
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L Jelínek and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (OJ 2007 L 69, p. 27)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;

               2.

               orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.05.2009.


title: Case T-291/12: Action brought on 3 July 2012 — Deutsche Bank v OHIM (Passion to Perform)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/14

         Action brought on 3 July 2012 — Deutsche Bank v OHIM (Passion to Perform)
   (Case T-291/12)
   2012/C 273/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Bank (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: R. Lange, T. Götting and G. Hild, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 April 2012 in case R 2233/2011-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Community of the word mark ‘Passion to Perform’ for goods and services in classes 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No W 1066295

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused protection of the mark for the European Community

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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