title: Case C-247/01: Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
C 227/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
(2) Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with                       tungssenat Salzburg of 18 June 2001, received at the Court
     Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on                Registry on 20 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
     the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the                 appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, the Salzburg District
     sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated                 Commission and the land transfer agent of the Land of
     according to the legal rate in force at the date on which              Salzburg (Case C-237/01), and Dr Dieter Cerha, the Mayor of
     that Law entered into force (2,5 % per annum) and not                  Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg
     according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with                   (Case C-238/01) on the following question:
     respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
     subsequently amended?
                                                                            Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
                                                                            interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
(1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.            and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
                                                                            Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
                                                                            No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
                                                                            building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
                                                                            with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
                                                                            acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Politierechtbank                  fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
Te Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) by order                       the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
of that court of 11 June 2001 in the case of Openbaar                       case?
                Ministerie against Hans Van Lent
                           (Case C-232/01)
                           (2001/C 227/24)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Politierechtbank Te
Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) of 11 June 2001                   Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission
received at the Court Registry an 18 June 2001, for a                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against                                           Sweden
Hans Van Lent on the following question:
                                                                                (Case C-247/01)
Do Community rules, in particular Article 39 EC (ex Article 48
of the EC Treaty) and Article 10 EC (ex Article 5 of the EC
Treaty), preclude a Member State from requiring registration                                        (2001/C 227/26)
of a vehicle belonging (1) to a leasing company established in
a neighbouring Member State, which is leased by an employer
and used by an employee (2) who is resident in the first-                   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
mentioned Member State, at a distance of some 200 km from                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
his place of employment, in a situation where the employee in               2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
question resides in the first-mentioned Member State (3) during             represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
the week and uses the vehicle in order to perform his contract              for service in Luxembourg.
of employment and also during his free time, including
weekends and holiday periods?                                               The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations both under the first sentence of Article 4(4)
                                                                                of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on
                                                                                the conservation of wild birds, most recently amended by
                                                                                Directive 97/49/EC (2), which was replaced by Article 6(3)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                            and (4) of Council Directive (3) 92/43/EEC of 21 May
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 18                            1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
June 2001 in the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger,                             fauna and flora, and under Articles 6(3) and 9(2) of
Dr Dieter Cerha, the Salzburg District Commission, the                            Directive 79/409/EEC,
Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land
                              of Salzburg                                   2.    order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.
                 (Cases C-237/01 and C-238/01)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2001/C 227/25)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      In accordance with the Treaty of Accession Sweden undertook
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                   to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 227/15
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘birds               Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the
directive’) by 1 January 1995. As of that date the obligations                 European Communities against French Republic
under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds directive in
respect of all areas classified pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of                               (Case C-259/01)
the birds directive were replaced by the obligations in
Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May                                      (2001/C 227/27)
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (‘habitats directive’) as laid down in Article 7 of that       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
directive.                                                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July 2001
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
As regards the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds               by Roland Tricot acting as Agent, with an address for service
directive with reference to Article 6(3) and (4) of the habitats         in Luxembourg.
directive the Swedish government considered that a number                The applicant claims that the Court should:
of amendments to its legislation were required to implement
the directive. The Commission claims that the necessary                  (a)   Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
measures were not taken within the period of two months                        within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                               the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules
As regards the consultation obligation under Article 6(3) of                   for the internal market in natural gas (1), the French
the birds directive the Commission claims that the necessary                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
measures were not taken within the period of two months                        directive and, in particular, Article 29;
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.
                                                                         (b) Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Finally, as regards the deficiencies in the correct implemen-
tation of Article 9 of the birds directive, the legal provisions         Pleas in law and main arguments
which Sweden claims incorporate Article 9, that is to say
Paragraph 23a of the Jaktförordningen (hunting regulation),              Under the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first
which incorporates Article 9(1)(a), Paragraph 9 of the Jaktlagen         paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty France was required
(hunting law), which incorporates Article 9(1)(c) and Para-              to adopt the measures necessary to transpose Directive
graph 31 of the Jaktförordningen, which incorporates                     98/30/EC at the latest by 10 August 2000, the date laid down
Article 9(1)(b), do not contain the specific information required        in Article 29 thereof.
under Article 9(2) of the birds directive. The further dero-
gations in the Swedish Jaktförordningen (Paragraphs 14, 15,              (1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 1.
20, 21, 27 and 29), in Paragraph 12 of the Artskyddförordn-
ingen (species protection regulation) (SFS 1998:1790) and in
Paragraph 5 of the protective provisions of the Naturvårdverket
(Swedish environment protection board) (NFS 1997:5) do not
contain the information required under Article 9(2) of the
birds directive. Nor does Paragraph 9b of the Jaktförordningen                  Removal from the register of Case C-216/00 (1)
specify the conditions of risk as prescribed by the third indent
of Article 9(2).                                                                                (2001/C 227/28)
                                                                         By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9.                                           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                           the register of Case C-216/00: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case C-76/03: Action brought on 20 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
5.4.2003                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 83/15
Do Regulations (EEC) No 1079/77 (1) and No 1822/77 (2),                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
which establish a co-responsibility levy on cows’ milk, apply              Tributaria Provinciale — di Massa Carrara, Sezione 2, by
to all transfers of cows’ milk from the producer to third parties,         order of that Court of 11 December 2002 in the case of
regardless of the legal form which such transfers take, or                      Carbonati Apuani s.r.l. against Comune di Carrara
merely to transfers which result in the acquisition of title in
the product by the transferee?                                                                      (Case C-72/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/28)
( 1) OJ L 131 of 26.5.1977, p. 6.
( 2) OJ L 203 of 9.8.1977, p. 1.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
                                                                           ria Provinciale — di Massa Carrara, Sezione 2 (Massa Carrara
                                                                           Provincial Tax Court, Second Chamber) of 11 December 2002,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2003, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Carbonati Apuani s.r.l. against
                                                                           Comune di Carrara on the following question:
Action brought on 18 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                           whether the Italian rules in question, Laws No 749 of 15 July
                                Belgium
                                                                           1911 and No 449 of 23 December 1997 and Decree-Law
                                                                           No 8 of 26 January 1999 as converted, with amendments,
                            (Case C-71/03)                                 into Law No 75.99 — establishing a marble tax in the Comune
                                                                           di Carrara — are compatible with Articles 23, 81, 85 and 86
                                                                           of the EC Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam,
                            (2003/C 83/27)                                 ratified in Italy by Law No 209.1998.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
18 February 2003 by the Commission of the European                         Action brought on 20 February 2003 by the Commission
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, acting as Agent,                  of the European Communities against the Republic of
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                                             Austria
                                                                                (Case C-76/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 83/29)
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection               An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
      of designs and, in any event, by failing to communicate              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has                   20 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;               Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                       Guerrero, also of the European Commission’s Legal Service,
                                                                           Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
The period prescribed for implementation of the directive                        comply with Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parlia-
expired on 28 October 2001.                                                      ment and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal
                                                                                protection of designs ( 1) and/or by failing to forward
                                                                                those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of
( 1) OJ L 289 of 28.10.1998, p. 28.                                              Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive;
                                                                           2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/16                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            le Strade v SCA RL CMC Cooperativa Muratori Cementisti
                                                                           Ravenna, SpA ICLA Costruzioni Generali and SpA Impresa
                                                                           Toto e Toto.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 28 October 2001.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
( 1) OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-337/00 ( 1)
Action brought on 21 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                                              (2003/C 83/32)
                             Netherlands
                           (Case C-80/03)
                                                                           By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           (2003/C 83/30)
                                                                           from the register of Case C-337/00: Federal Republic of
                                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
21 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                       Removal from the register of Case C-188/01 ( 1)
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 1999/93/EC ( 1) of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on                                          (2003/C 83/33)
      a Community framework for electronic signatures, or in
      any event by failing to inform the Commission of those
      provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-188/01 (Reference for a preliminary
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.               ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenats Salzburg):
                                                                           Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
The period within which the measures had to be adopted
expired on 19 July 2001.
( 1) OJ L 13 of 19.1.2000, p. 12.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-375/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/34)
        Removal from the register of Case C-173/00 ( 1)
                                                                           By order of 15 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                           (2003/C 83/31)                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-375/01: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Ireland.
By order of 14 January 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                    (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
from the register of Case C-173/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS — Ente Nazionale per


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of 8 February 1996 in the case of Reisebüro Binder GmbH v. Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften (Case C-116/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 158/9
      contrary to Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which taxes             Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for Carina Mosbsek v .
      electricity supplied from other Member States more               Lonmodtagernes Garantifond on the following question:
      heavily than domestically produced electricity ?
                                                                       In a situation where the employer is not established in the
3 . If the answer to Question 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, is         Member State in which the employee is resident and is solely
      the system described therein to be regarded as contrary          represented in the State of the employee's residence by way
      to the EC Treaty in its entirety or in some respects ?           of the said employee's work, which, inter alia, is carried out
                                                                       in office premises rented by the employer for the employee's
                                                                       use , is it the guarantee institution in the country where the
                                                                       employer is established or the guarantee institution in the
                                                                       country where the employee is resident which, on the
                                                                       employer's insolvency, according to Article 3 of Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                       80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
by order of 8 February 1996 in the case of Reisebiiro Binder
                                                                       Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
         GmbH v. Finanzamt Stuttgart-Kôrperschaften
                                                                       event of the insolvency of their employer ( l ) is to guarantee
                        ( Case C-1 16/96                               payment of the employee's outstanding claims resulting
                          ( 96/C 158/ 19 )                             from the employment relationship in question ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (') OJ No L 283 , 28 . 10 . 1980 , p . 23 .
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
( Federal Finance Court), Fifth Chamber, of 8 February
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April
1996 , in the case of Reisebiiro Binder GmbH v . Finanzamt
Stuttgart-Kôrperschaften          ( Stuttgart    Tax      Office :
Corporations ), on the following questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lansràtten,
Is Article 9 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 77/388/EEC (') to be             County of Kopparberg, by order of that court of 22 March
interpreted as meaning that for the determination of the               1996 in the case of Jessica Safir v. County of Kopparberg
taxable amount for that part of the transport which takes                                        Tax Authority
place within the country in the case of cross-frontier                                         ( Case C-l 18/96 )
transport of passengers the inclusive consideration :                                            ( 96/C 158/21 )
( a ) must always be apportioned according to the
       proportion of the distances covered, so that stopping           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       and waiting times between the portions of the                   European Communities by an order of the Lansràtten
       transport, for example with educational trips, are not          ( County Administrative Court ) Kopparberg of 22 March
       taken into account, or                                          1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 April
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jessica Safir
( b ) does the provision contain only a rule with regard to the        v . County of Kopparberg Tax Authority on the following
       place where the transport services are supplied , under         question :
       which that place is to be determined only according to
       the distances covered, so that the Member States are            Where in a Member State , the taxation of savings policies
       free to determine the criterion by which the inclusive          issued by domestic life assurance companies and foreign life
       consideration is to be apportioned between the taxable          assurance companies conducting insurance business in the
       and the non-taxable parts of the transport ?                    Member State through an establishment, takes the form of a
                                                                       tax on yield from insurance capital calculated in a standard
C ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                        way and levied on the insurer, is it contrary to Articles 6 , 59,
                                                                       60 or 73b and 73d of the Treaty of Rome for tax to be
                                                                       charged — with the aim of maintaining competitive
                                                                       neutrality between domestic and foreign savings policies —
                                                                       on insurance premiums paid by policyholders resident in the
                                                                       Member State under life assurance policies contracted with
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by            insurers which are established in another Member State and
a decision of that court of 27 March 1996 in the case of               which are operating in the firstmentioned Member State in
Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for                    accordance with the rules on corss-border insurance
       Carina Mosbaek v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond                    activities, if the tax on the aforementioned insurance
                        ( Case C-1 17/96 )                             premiums can, upon application to the tax administration,
                           ( 96/C 158/20 )                             be reduced entirely, or by 50 % in the event that the
                                                                       insurance company established abroad is subject to income
                                                                       tax in the State in which it is domiciled that is comparable to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 the tax charged on domestic savings policies in the other
European Communities by an order of the 0stre Landsret                 Member State ?
( Eastern Regional Court ) of 27 March 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 April 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Danmarks Aktive


title: Case T-426/11: Action brought on 1 August 2011 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/46

         Action brought on 1 August 2011 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE)
   (Case T-426/11)
   2011/C 282/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maharishi Foundation Ltd (St. Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1294/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 41, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8246704

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application for a Community trade mark, for part of the goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Examination Division for further prosecution

      Pleas in law: The applicant puts forward four pleas in law: (i) infringement of Articles 75 and 7(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not explicitly decided on Article 7(1)(a) of CTMR, but did, nevertheless, consider that the mark ‘MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE’ is generic; (ii) infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided that the mark is devoid of any distinctive character; (iii) infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly concluded that the mark consists exclusively of indications, which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or services, for which applicant filed the mark; and (iv) infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided that the mark has not become distinctive in relation to the goods or services, for which registration is requested in consequence of the use, which has been made of it.


title: Case C-466/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 18 October 2012 — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retreiver Sverige AB

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 18 October 2012 — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retreiver Sverige AB
   (Case C-466/12)
   2012/C 379/31
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Svea hovrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd

      Defendant: Retreiver Sverige AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               If anyone other than the holder of copyright in a certain work supplies a clickable link to the work on his website, does that constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society? (1)

               2.

               Is the assessment under question 1 affected if the work to which the link refers is on a website on the Internet which can be accessed by anyone without restrictions or if access is restricted in some way?

               3.

               When making the assessment under question 1, should any distinction be drawn between a case where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown on another website and one where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown in such a way as to give the impression that it is appearing on the same website?

               4.

               Is it possible for a Member State to give wider protection to authors’ exclusive right by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


19.6.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 174/15
applicant states that Deutsche Post AG has spent several                        Removal from the register of Case T-210/96 (1)
billion DEM to acquire subsequently joint control of DHL
International and control of some of the major freight carriers                                  (1999/C 174/30)
and/or parcel providers. According to the applicant, there is
no evidence that no State aid is involved. Such issues can and
must be examined by the Commission.                                                         (Language of the case: French)
The applicant emphasises that the Commission’s intervention              By order of 10 February 1999 the President of the First
in this case is crucial for maintaining competition in the               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
markets concerned. Currently, the postal and parcel market is            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
characterised by an impressive wave of take-overs by the                 Case T-210/96: Margarida Marı́z Mendes Pires Afonso v
(former) national post offices and particularly Deutsche Post            Commission of the European Communities.
AG. Private operators are not able to meet this form of
competition and will, if no appropriate action is taken by the           (1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
Commission, be eliminated from the market.
On 21 December 1998, the applicant sent a letter inviting the
Commission to take a decision with regard to its complaint.
The applicant announced that it would initiate proceedings
under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission did not
inform the applicant within two months from the date of that                    Removal from the register of Case T-291/97 (1)
letter. The period of two months thus expired on 21 February
1999 without the Commission having taken a decision or                                           (1999/C 174/31)
defined its position in regard to the applicant’s complaint
under Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the period of more than 10 months
which has elapsed since the complaint was submitted is a                 By order of 12 March 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
sufficiently long period to enable the Commission to close the           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
preliminary stage of investigation and to initiate a formal              has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-291/97:
investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.                      Robert Mehlen and Others v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 7 of 10.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 174/29)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-610/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 174/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber                               (Language of the case: Danish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-194/96:              By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the Fourth
Mireille Meskens v European Parliament.                                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-610/97: Ingeborg Fangel v Council of the European
(1) OJ No C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                              Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.


title: Case C-546/15: Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/10

         Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-546/15)
   (2016/C 007/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, M. Heller and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 24(1) of Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, (1) or by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the defendant had failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the defendant, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, on account of its failure to fulfil the obligation to notify implementing measures, to pay a penalty payment in the daily amount of EUR 210 078, payable to the own-resources account of the European Union, as from the date of the Court’s judgment declaring that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations;

               —

               order Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 14 February 2014.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 197, p. 38.


C 35/20                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                    7.2.2004
       Removal from the register of Case T-124/03 (1)                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-161/03: Cascades S.A. v Commission of the European
                         (2004/C 35/37)                                   Communities.
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the register of Case T-124/03: AES Drax Power Limited v
Commission of the European Communities.                                          Removal from the register of Case T-243/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/40)
(1) OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the First
       Removal from the register of Case T-127/03 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2004/C 35/38)                                   T-243/03: Guardant, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.
By order of 7 November 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-127/03: Antoinette Pascucci v Europol.
(1) OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003.                                                      Removal from the register of Case T-244/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/41)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
       Removal from the register of Case T-161/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/39)                                   By order of 15 October 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                          T-244/03: Flavia Angeletti v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
By order of 4 November 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    (1) OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2003 in Case C-452/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Margarethe Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Article 40 of and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement — Prior authorisation procedure for the acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots — Admissibility — Conditions)

text:
C 275/16                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             15.11.2003
2.    Such proof must make it possible to establish, without the             1.    Declares that, by retaining in force a tax on lubricating oils
      slightest ambiguity, that the compensating products have                     under the first paragraph of Article 62 of Legislative Decree
      resulted from processing of the temporary export goods.                      No 504 of 26 October 1995, ‘Testo unico delle disposizioni
                                                                                legislative concernenti le imposte sulla produzione e sui consumi
3.    It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the           e relative sanzioni penali e amministrative’ (Consolidated Text
      circumstances of the main proceedings, whether or not the                    of Legislative Provisions relating to duties on production and
      economic operator has adduced that proof.                                    consumption and related criminal and administrative penalties)
                                                                                beyond the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned
4.    If so, the amount of the import duty which would be applicable               opinion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      to the temporary export goods on the basis of their correct tariff           under Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 Feb-
      heading may be deducted when the compensating products are                   ruary 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject
      released for free circulation.                                               to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring
                                                                                of such products, and Article 8(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/
                                                                                81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.                                                        structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by
                                                                                Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994;
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 25 September 2003
                                                                                of 23 September 2003
in Case C-437/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                            in Case C-452/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Margarethe Ospelt and
                                                                                Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directives 92/12/EEC and 92/81/EEC — Tax on lubricating
                                                                             (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty
                oils — Excise duty on mineral oils)
                                                                             (now Article 56 EC) — Article 40 of and Annex XII to the
                                                                             EEA Agreement — Prior authorisation procedure for the
                            (2003/C 275/26)                                  acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots — Admissi-
                                                                                bility — Conditions)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/27)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           (Language of the case: German)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-437/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and K. Gross) v Italian Republic (Agent:
I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello): Application for a                   In Case C-452/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
declaration that, by retaining in force a tax on lubricating oils,           EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February                   Margarethe Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung,
1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to                     on the interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of                   amendment, Article 12 EC) and Articles 73b to 73d, 73f
such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), and Article 8(1)(a) of                   and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC to 60 EC), the
Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                        Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral                  J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), as amended by Council Directive                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
94/74/EEC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46), the                    D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges;                      Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
judgment on 25 September 2003, in which it:                                  23 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 275/17
1.    Rules such as those of the Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz            Article 39(4) EC must be construed as allowing a Member State to
      (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of 23 September 1993, as                reserve for its nationals the post of master of vessels flying its flag
      amended, making transactions relating to agricultural and              and engaged in ‘small-scale maritime shipping’ (‘Kleine See-
      forestry plots subject to administrative controls must, where a        schifffahrt’) only if the rights under powers conferred by public law
      transaction is in issue between nationals of States party to the       granted to masters of such vessels are in fact exercised on a regular
      Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992,                 basis and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.
      be assessed in the light of Article 40 of and Annex XII to the
      aforementioned Agreement, which are provisions possessing the
      same legal scope as that of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now          (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
      Article 56 EC), which is identical in substance.
2.    Article 73b of the Treaty in conjunction with Articles 73c,
      73d, 73f and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 57 EC to 60
      EC) do not preclude the acquisition of agricultural land being
      made subject to the grant of prior authorisation such as that
      established by the VGVG. However, they do preclude such
      authorisation being refused in every case in which the acquirer                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      does not himself farm the land concerned as part of a holding
      and on which he is not resident.
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                of 11 September 2003
                                                                             in Case C-67/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 5
                       of 30 September 2003                                  of Directive 79/923/EEC — Quality of shellfish waters —
                                                                                Pollution-reduction programme)
in Case C-47/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                                                    (2003/C 275/29)
Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek v Bundesrepu-
                       blik Deutschland ( (1))
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39(4) EC —
Employment in the public service — Masters of fishing
vessels — Conferment of powers of public authority on
    board — Posts reserved for nationals of the flag State)                  In Case C-67/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: M. Shotter) v Ireland (Agent: D. O’Hagan): Application
                                                                             for a declaration that, by not adopting programmes for all its
                          (2003/C 275/28)
                                                                             designated shellfish waters in accordance with Article 5 of
                                                                             Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the
                    (Language of the case: German)                           quality required of shellfish waters (OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47),
                                                                             Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmer-
                    in the European Court Reports)                           mans, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
                                                                             and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
In Case C-47/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    2003, in which it:
EC by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                             1.     Declares that, by not adopting programmes for all its designated
before that court between Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus                         shellfish waters in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive
Snoek and Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the
                                                                                79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of
Wasser- und Schiffahrtsdirektion Nord, on the interpretation
                                                                                shellfish waters, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
of Article 39(4) EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
                                                                                thereunder;
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                    2.     Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
                                                                             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it
has ruled:


title: Case C-3/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 3 January 2013 — AS Baltic Agro v Maksu-ja Tolliameti Ida maksu-ja tollikeskus

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 3 January 2013 — AS Baltic Agro v Maksu-ja Tolliameti Ida maksu-ja tollikeskus
   (Case C-3/13)
   2013/C 63/23
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant: AS Baltic Agro

      Defendant and respondent: Maksu-ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the importer and the first independent customer in the Community must always be one and the same person?

               (b)

               Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008, in conjunction with Commission Decision 2008/577/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that exemption from anti-dumping duty applies only to such first independent customer in the Community as has not resold the goods to be declared prior to making the declaration?

               (c)

               Is Article 66 of the Community Customs Code established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, (3) in conjunction with Article 251 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (4) and the other procedural rules relating to subsequent amendments to a customs declaration, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the wrong consignee is entered in a customs declaration on the importation of goods, it must be possible, upon an application being lodged, for the declaration to be invalidated and the consignee’s details to be corrected even after the goods have been released if the customs duty exemption provided for in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 ought to have applied if the correct consignee had been entered, or is Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 to be interpreted, in those circumstances, as meaning that the customs authorities are not entitled to make a subsequent entry in the accounts?

               (d)

               If both of the alternatives in Question (c) should be answered in the negative, is it then compatible with Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 28(1) and Article 31 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if Article 66 of the Community Customs Code established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, in conjunction with Article 251 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 and the other procedural rules relating to subsequent amendments to a customs declaration, does not permit a declaration to be invalidated and the consignee’s details to be corrected, upon an application being lodged, after the goods have been released if the customs duty exemption provided for in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 ought to have been applied if the correct consignee had been entered?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 185, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2008/577/EC of 4 July 2008 accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine (OJ 2008 L 185, p. 43).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case C-18/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling form the Kilpailuneuvosto by order of that tribunal of 14 December 2000 in the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo Oy

text:
24.3.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 95/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling form the Kilpailuneu-               Must the words ‘put to genuine use’ in Article 12(1) of
vosto by order of that tribunal of 14 December 2000 in                 Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted in the manner set out
the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy,                  in paragraph 3.4 above (2) and, if the answer is in the negative,
Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and Rakennuttaja-                on the basis of which (other) criterion must the meaning of
    toimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo Oy                   ‘genuine use’ be determined?
                          (Case C-18/01)                               Can there be ‘genuine use’ as referred to above also where no
                                                                       new goods are traded under the trade mark but other activities
                          (2001/C 95/07)                               are engaged in as set out in subparagraphs (v) and (vi) of
                                                                       paragraph 3.1 above (3)?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Kilpailuneuvosto
(Competition Council), Finland, of 14 December 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 16 January 2001, for a           (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989.
preliminary ruling in the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta         (2) The question whether a particular use can be regarded as ‘genuine
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and                     use’ can be answered only (i) by taking into consideration all the
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo                  facts and circumstances specific to the case whereby (ii) the
Oy on the following question:                                              decisive factor is whether all the facts and circumstances specific
                                                                           to the case, when viewed in connection with one another and in
                                                                           the context of what is regarded as usual and commercially justified
Is a share company which a town owns and in which the town                 in the relevant sector of the trade, create the impression that the
exercises control to be regarded as a contracting authority                use serves to find or preserve a market for goods and services
within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Directive                    under that trade mark and not simply to maintain the trade mark,
92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the               and whereby (iii) account must generally be taken, as regards
award of public service contracts (1), if the company acquires             these facts and circumstances, of the kind, extent, frequency,
design and project management services for a building project              regularity and duration of the use in conjunction with the kind of
comprising offices to be leased to undertakings?                           goods or service and the kind and size of the undertaking.
                                                                       (3) Sale of components and extinguishing compositions for fire-
As a supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto enquires                 extinguishing apparatus covered by the trade mark MINIMAX to
whether it affects the decision on the point that the town’s               undertakings which maintained similar apparatus. Maintaining,
                                                                           checking, regauging, repairing and overhauling of fire-
building project endeavours to create the conditions for
                                                                           extinguishing apparatus marked with the trade mark MINIMAX,
business activity to be carried on in the town.                            using stickers bearing the words ‘Gebruiksklaar Minimax’ (Read
                                                                           for use — Minimax).
As a second supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto
enquires whether it affects the decision on the point that the
offices to be built are leased to one undertaking only.
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 1 February 2001 by Sandro Cognigni
                                                                       against the order made on 30 November 2000 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (First Chamber) in Case T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni vo
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                         Commission of the European Communities
Nederlanden by order of 26 January 2001 in the case of
         Ansul B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V.
                                                                                (Case C-43/01 P)
                          (Case C-40/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/09)
                          (2001/C 95/08)
                                                                       An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities on 1 February 2001 by Sandro
European Communities by order of 26 January 2001 by                    Cognigni, represented by Walter Massucci, of the Fermo (AP)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                    Bar, having Chambers in Pedaso, 5 Via Giovanni XXIII, against
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on              the order made on 30 November 2000 by the Court of First
31 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ansul         Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case
B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V. on the following questions:        T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the EC.


title: Case T-260/04: Action brought on 23 June 2004 by CESTAS (Centro di Educazione Sanitaria e Technologie Appropriate Sanitarie) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/36

         Action brought on 23 June 2004 by CESTAS (Centro di Educazione Sanitaria e Technologie Appropriate Sanitarie) against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-260/04)
   (2004/C 217/64)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 2004 by CESTAS (Centro di Educazione Sanitaria e Technologie Appropriate) (Centre for Health Education and Appropriate Health Technologies), represented by Nicoletta Amadei and Charles Turk, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   This action seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission (Republic of Guinea delegation) of 21 April 2004 under which the applicant, an NGO operating in Guinea since 1987, was ordered to pay the sum of 959 543 835 Guinean francs (equivalent to EUR 397 126.02) as costs considered unjustified in the carrying out of projects for which it is responsible.
   In support of its claims, the applicant argues:

               —

               infringement of essential procedural requirements for failure adequately to state reasons, contradictory reasons and lack of legal basis. It is claimed that the contested debit note refers only to the agreement ‘Amélioration des conditions de vie à l'intérieur du pays (“Improvement of living conditions within the country”) – 7 ACP GUI 019-4-AT CESTAS’, when no agreement with that name exists, which is why it is not clear to which agreement or agreements set up between the applicant and the Guinean government the contested decision refers. On the other hand, CESTAS notes the absence of any legal basis whatsoever on which the contested decision might rest. Finally, the debit note gives no explanation of the accounting standards by which the Commission determined the sum in dispute;

               —

               it would also seem possible for the contested decision to be annulled inasmuch as the order for the applicant to pay the sum in question was made by the Commission, which is a third party to the contracts signed in the various projects in Guinea;

               —

               infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1), insofar as no action was taken in respect of the applicant's request to obtain a copy of the Ernst & Young report on which the contested decision is based;

               —

               infringement of the defendant's rights of defence;

               —

               infringement of the principles of the right to be heard and of proper administration. In the latter respect, it is noted in particular that the examination of the applicant's alleged deficits was wholly carried out by an external body, Ernst & Young, which was not entirely a third party as regards the main parties, but a body paid by the Guinean Government and, as such, cannot be regarded as impartial.

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 31.05.2001, p. 43.


title: Case T-145/01: Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino against Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.9.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 245/29
—      Lack of legal basis                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
       Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January                   The applicant took part in Competition COM/TB/99. He
       1998 (5), which contains the provisions in force concern-            challenges his not being placed on the reserve list for the
       ing compensatory allowances, does not lay down any                   recruitment of Administrative Assistants, Senior Administrat-
       specific rule on which the Commission might base itself              ive Assistants and Principal Administrative Assistants.
       in order to ’revise downwards’ the production averages
       for the last three fishing years in the event that one of the
       members leaves a producers’ organisation.                            In support of his application, the applicant claims breach of:
—      Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations                   —     the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                            —     the procedural guarantees afforded by the Community
       According to the legislation in force when the contested                   legal system;
       regulations were adopted and entered into force, the
       applicant legitimately expected to receive higher com-               —     essential procedural requirements and, in particular,
       pensatory allowances. Such expectations were dashed                        infringement of the rules governing the running of
       when the applicable rules were changed under the                           competitions such as those laid down in Article 3(1) of
       contested provisions.                                                      Annex II to the Staff Regulations and in the ’Guide for
                                                                                selection boards and committees’;
( 1) OJ 2001 L 86, p 4.                                                     —     the legal framework of the competition notice; and
( 2) OJ 2001 L 86, p. 8.
( 3) OJ 2001 L 118, p. 12.
                                                                            —     the obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
( 4) OJ 2001 L 159, p. 10.
( 5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January 1998
     laying down detailed rules for granting the compensatory allow-
     ance for tuna intended for the processing industry (OJ 1998 L 17,
     p. 8).
                                                                            Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-145/01)
Action brought on 22 June 2001 by Raymond Maxwell
      against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2001/C 245/47)
                           (Case T-143/01)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2001/C 245/46)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino,
                                                                            residing in Lauzun (France), represented by George Vander-
                                                                            sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 June 2001 by Raymond                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Maxwell, residing in Lasne (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.                                         —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                10 August 2000 not to acknowledge the occupational
                                                                                origin of his arthritic symptoms;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul the consequential decisions to charge to the
—      annul the decision of the selection board for competition                  applicant the fees and incidental expenses of the doctor
       COM/TB/99 to award to the applicant for the oral test a                    appointed by the applicant to the Medical Committee
       mark too low to allow him to be placed on the reserve                      and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the third
       list;                                                                      doctor;
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/30               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.9.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By the present action the applicant, is challenging the appoint-        Applicant for the Com-        Bruno Heim and Franz Gustav
                                                                        munity trade mark:            Andersson
ing authority’s refusal to acknowledge the occupational origin
of a disease which, according to the applicant himself, was             The Community trade           Figurative mark ‘DockerS by Gerli’
caused by having to carry and lift, as part of his duties, loads        mark concerned:               — Application No 22.129 for
of a certain weight.                                                                                goods in Class 25
                                                                        Proprietor of the right to    Levi Strauss & Co.
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                        the trade mark or sign
                                                                        asserted by way of oppo-
—     the allegedly incomprehensible nature of the Medical
                                                                        sition in the opposition
      Committee’s findings;
                                                                        proceedings:
—     infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and           Trade mark or sign            French and Swedish figurative
      Article 3(2) of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of        asserted by way of oppo-      marks ‘DOCKERS’ registered for
      the European Communities against the Risk of Accident             sition in the opposition      goods in Class 25
      and of Occupational Disease, and failure to observe the           proceedings:
      duty of care and the principle of proportionality;
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the application for
—     breach of the procedure laid down in Article 21 of the            sition Division:              registration of the Community
      abovementioned rules.                                                                           trade mark
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal and con-
                                                                        Appeal:                       firmation of the rejection of the
                                                                                application for registration of the
                                                                                Community trade mark
Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Bruno Heim and Franz                   Grounds of claim:             — infringement of Articles 34
Gustav Andersson against Office for the Harmonization                                                     and 35          of Regulation
 of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                  No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                — infringement of Article 8(2)(c)
                                                                                of Regulation No 40/94 and
                        (Case T-149/01)
                                                                                Rule      8     of  Regulation
                                                                                No 2868/95 (2);
                        (2001/C 245/48)                                                               — breach of the concept of ‘risk
                                                                                of confusion’
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                 application was drafted: Spanish)                          Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                            1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                  Community trade mark(OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3 July 2001 by Bruno Heim and Franz Gustav Andersson,
both residing in Germany, represented by Juan José Carreño
Moreno.
                                                                        Action brought on 2 July 2001 by Cristiano Sebastiani
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the                                     (Case T-150/01)
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
      marks and designs (OHIM)) of 4 April 2001 in the                                           (2001/C 245/49)
      proceedings in R 588/199-3 dismissing the appeal against
      the decision to refuse to register the figurative mark
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      ‘DockerS by Gerli’ as a Community trade mark for goods
      in Class 25; and
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     order a new decision annulling the preceding decision and         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      granting Community trade mark registration application            European Communities on 2 July 2001 by Cristiano Sebastiani,
      No 22.129 ‘DockerS by Gerli’ for goods in Class 25 of             residing in Brussels represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
      the international classification, of which the applicants         Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
      are the proprietors.                                              Luxembourg.


title: Case T-90/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Gelinova Group v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (galatea…è naturale)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/38

         Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Gelinova Group v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (galatea…è naturale)
   (Case T-90/17)
   (2017/C 121/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gelinova Group Srl (Tezze di Vazzola, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cloetta Italia Srl (Cremona, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘galatea…è naturale’ — Application for registration No 13 187 695

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2016 in Case R 207/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


11.4.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 113/21
the Basic Regulation, in particular with respect to the            Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
potential impact of definitive anti-dumping measures on            removal from the register of Case T-78/94: Hermann
importers/retailers and consumers. The procedure within            Cordes v. Council of the European Union and
the meaning of Article 21 requires an active analysis of           Commission of the European Communities.
the Community interest issues, at least to the extent that
these are raised by interested parties. Once legitimate            (1) OJ C 103, 11.4.1994.
points are raised in this context, the Commission is bound
either to agree and make recommendations accordingly to
the Council for its definitive measures, or to provide a
reasonable explanation of its decision to the contrary.
Neither of these steps was taken in this case, contrary to
the legitimate expectations of the applicants.                           Removal from the register of Case T-192/95 (1)
Finally, the applicants submit that the Council's decision                                 (98/C 113/52)
to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on top of the
existing quantitative restrictions on imports of the product                      (Language of the case: English)
concerned from two (India and Pakistan) of the three
exporting countries is contrary to the principle of                By order of 5 February 1998 the President of the Third
proportionality.                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case T-192/95: Hitachi Ltd,
                                                                   Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
                                                                   Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co.
                                                                   Ltd, Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd, Sharp Corporation and
      Removal from the register of Case T-191/93 (1)               Toshiba Corporation v. Commission of the European
                        (98/C 113/49)                              Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case T-191/93: Albrecht Graf
Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt v. Council of the European Union.                   Removal from the register of Case T-215/95 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 113/53)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 2 February 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                         T-224/93 (1)                              removal from the register of Case T-215/95: Telecom Italia
                        (98/C 113/50)                              SpA v. Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and
T-224/93: Hans-Erdmann von Flotow and Gunda                              Removal from the register of Case T-197/96 (1)
Bergmann v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                                (98/C 113/54)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
       Removal from the register of Case T-78/94 (1)               Case T-197/96: Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano
                                                                   Reggiano and Latteria Sociale Spadarotta soc. coop. arl v.
                        (98/C 113/51)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First


title: Joined cases T-566/11 and T-567/11: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Viejo Valle v OHIM Établissements Coquet (Cup and saucer with grooves and soup dish with grooves) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cup and saucer with grooves and a soup dish with grooves — Ground for invalidity — Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State — Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Viejo Valle v OHIM Établissements Coquet (Cup and saucer with grooves and soup dish with grooves)
   (Joined cases T-566/11 and T-567/11) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cup and saucer with grooves and a soup dish with grooves - Ground for invalidity - Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State - Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
   2013/C 359/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Viejo Valle, SA (L’Olleria, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Établissements Coquet (Saint-Léonard-de-Noblat, France) (represented by: C. Bouchenard, lawyer)

      Re:

   Actions brought against the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 July 2011 (Cases R 1054/2010-3 and R 1055/2010-3), relating to opposition proceedings between Établissements Coquet and Viejo Valle, SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-566/11 and T-567/11 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders Viejo Valle, SA to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Établissements Coquets.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.